SBI Directed To Pay Compensation For negligence , DSCDRC Upholds District Forum Order

The Delhi State Consumer Forum bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal as President and Pinki as member upheld the order of the district forum directing the SBI bank to pay compensation for negligence as it failed to provide CCTV footage of the ATM to the complainant and failed to block her ATM card on time.

In the case at hand the complainant approached the SBI ATM to withdraw money but failed to operate the card. At the same time some unknown person entered the ATM and said that he would withdraw the money for the complainant. He started operating her card forcefully. The password button was already pressed by the complainant but the money had not disbursed. 

Thereafter, the complainant went to the ATM of Axis bank and inserted the ATM in the machine, but found that the name on the screen was someone called Girjesh Gupta. The complainant went to the bank immediately to complain about the incident but her complaint was not paid any heed to. She was asked to stand in the line which was long. Resultantly, by the time the complaint got her ATM card blocked, an amount of Rs. 40,000 had already been debited from her account.

Later an FIR was lodged as the person used the card again several times again. The bank did not provid ethe CCTV footage of the incident even on the request of the complainant and said that there was some technical error. Later, a complaint was also made before the ombudsmen but nothing came out of it. Thereafter the complainant approached the district forum for a refund of Rs.40,000 along with compensation.

The district forum directed the bank to refund an amount of Rs.40,000 at an interest of 6% p.a. from 8.05.2012 till the date of realisation and further directed the bank to pay Rs.10,000 towards the mental harassment caused and the litigation charges.

The bank resultantly approached the state forum for setting aside the order of the district forum. It was submitted by the bank that the complainant herself handed over her ATM card to an unknown person and by the time she reached the bank to complain about the incident the amount of 40,000 had already been deducted. 

The respondent herein submitted that she did not hand over her card to an unknown person, it was forcibly taken from her. She further submitted that of the bank had blocked her card on time, her money would not have been deducted at all. She further put forth that the bank even failed to give her a CCTV footage of the incident in the ATM which made it difficult in identifying the person who took her card forcibly.

The state forum observed that the only issue that needs to be considered is whether the bank was actually deficient in providing its services to the respondent by not blocking the card in a timely manner and not maintaining the CCTV footage.

The bench noted that the respondent herein made a police complaint about the incident and a complaint was also made before the banking ombudsmen, but the same was of no avail. Therefore, the forum concurred with the observation of the district forum that the present case in one where an innocent citizen susceptible to trickery on account of her old age had fallen prey to misdeeds of miscreants.

The bench noted that the respondent is a senior citizen. It was observed that merely because an ATM only accepts the ATM card and PIN, it does not mean that withdrawals cannot be made from it fraudulently.

The state forum observed that the primary purpose of CCTV in ATMs is to prevent such incidents of fraud and relied on the decision of NCDRC in the case State Bank of India v. Sansar Chand Kapoor and ors where the national commission said that every bank is obliged to give a copy of CCTV footage to the complainant and not providing the same shall be construed as deficiency in service.

In the light of the aforementioned the state forum upheld the order of the district forum directing the bank to refund an amount of Rs.40,000 at an interest of 6% p.a. from 8.05.2012 till the date of realisation and further directing the bank to pay Rs.10,000 towards the mental harassment caused and the litigation charges.

Case: STATE BANK OF INDIA v. MS. MADHU CHAWLA

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1020/2014