Bihar State Commission Sets Aside Order Against SBI Based On Lack Of Technical Issues Pertaining To ATMs On Its Part

Brief Facts:

The Complainant held a savings account with the State Bank of India (“SBI”). On 20th September 2015, at 12:12 PM, the Complainant went to activate his ATM Card at Chaksikandar ATM. He got the acknowledgement of Rs. 1,25,898/- in his account. However, the ATM card did not activate despite entering the correct pin. Therefore, he went to an ATM situated at Bidupur station around 12:25 PM. He attempted to use the ATM and received a message stating, “Sorry unable to process”. He tried again at 1:09 PM and found a reduced balance of Rs. 85,898/- in his account. Further attempts on the same day resulted in a deduction of Rs. 40,000/ due to a defective machine, leading to a loss of Rs. 40,000/ for the Complainant.

Despite reaching out to his designated branch, the Branch Manager failed to provide any response to the Complainant's concerns. Following this, on 16th October 2015, a registered letter was dispatched by the Complainant, yet no action ensued from the Branch Manager. Subsequently, on 8th February 2016, a legal notice was sent via registered post, but no response was received. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vaishali, Bihar (“District Commission”).

The District Commission directed SBI to pay Rs. 40,000/- with 4% interest, pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Commission, SBI filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (“State Commission”).

Contentions of SBI:

SBI contended that the Complainant initiated a transaction at the Chaksikandarpur ATM, involving two ATMs with different codes in the same room. Upon investigation, it was determined that the Complainant began a transaction at 12:10:25 on 20th September 2015 using ATM code GFBU000088038. Although the transaction ended at 12:12:27 without dispensing the money due to technical issues, the Complainant completed another transaction at 12:14:47 with ATM code GFBU000088017, securing Rs. 40,000/- by 12:15:49. Further examination of the cash statement from the second ATM revealed no excess cash, indicating that the Complainant did indeed receive the money. SBI emphasized that the ATM in question operated solely based on computer software without human intervention, negating any suggestion of deficiency on the part of bank officials or personnel.

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission observed SBI's written statement regarding the presence of two ATMs in Chaksikandar. It pointed out that on the same day, at 12:14:17, the Complainant successfully conducted a transaction at ATM No. GFBU000088017, withdrawing Rs. 40,000/-. The District Commission noted the Complainant's failure to disclose the presence of two ATMs in his complaint. It also questioned why the Complainant opted to travel to Bidupur Station instead of using the functioning ATM (GFBU000088017) in the same room. Additionally, SBI provided evidence from the Complainant's bank passbook, indicating a withdrawal of Rs. 40,000/- from the ATM located at Chaksikandar, corroborating their assertion.

Finding these discrepancies in the Complainant's version, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by SBI and set aside the order of the District Commission.

Case Title: The Branch Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs Shiv Chandra Kumar

Case No.: First Appeal No. A/41/2022