H.P. State Commission Allows SBI Appeal Against Customer's Plea Of Unauthorised Withdrawal From ATM .

Brief Facts:

Mr. Charanjit Singh (“Complainant”), held a savings bank account with the State Bank of India (“SBI”) at the Una (H.P.) branch, with a balance of Rs. 9,76,228.67/-. Later, after withdrawing Rs. 10,000/- from an ATM in Shimla, the Complainant observed that the displayed balance was only Rs. 5,86,113/-. Subsequent scrutiny of his bank statement revealed unauthorized withdrawals totalling Rs. 4,00,000/-. These withdrawals occurred on various dates from 12-06-2017 to 20-06-2017, involving transactions ranging from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. These withdrawals were made without the Complainant's knowledge or consent, causing him a financial loss of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Complainant made several communications with the bank but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Una, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”).

The Complainant asserted that he never shared his bank details or ATM card, and he still possesses the ATM card, which had a daily permissible limit of Rs. 40,000/-. However, the transactions exceeded this limit, leading the Complainant to suspect foul play by bank officials.

In response, the SBI contested the complaint, acknowledging the Complainant's savings account but denying the other allegations. It claimed that the Complainant provided his mobile number for ATM card details and received withdrawal messages. The SBI suggested that the Complainant, being neither layman nor illiterate, may have shared his ATM card and PIN, resulting in misuse. It argued that without card insertion and password application, the ATM would not operate, and no transactions could be completed. Therefore, it argued that there was no negligence on its part.

The District Commission allowed the complaint and held the SBI liable for deficiency in service. Dissatisfied, the SBI filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (“State Commission”).

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission noted that the Complainant himself attested to the possession of the ATM card and affirmed that he did not disclose the secret PIN to anyone. Moreover, the State Commission noted that there existed no record indicating that the Complainant promptly lodged a police complaint or filed an FIR, addressing the alleged unauthorized withdrawal of funds from his account. Further, it noted that the disputed transactions, spanning from 12.06.2017 to 20.06.2017, lacked documented evidence.

Thereafter, the State Commission rejected the Complainant's plea regarding the non-receipt of transaction messages on his mobile, due to the absence of prompt action to report the issue to the bank. Considering that the ATM card remained in the Complainant's custody, the State Commission held that this was followed logically and that no one else could have withdrawn the amount from the ATM without inputting the secret PIN.

In light of these facts, the State Commission concluded that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice could be attributed to the SBI. Consequently, the order passed by the District Commission was set aside.

Case Title: The Senior Branch Manager, State Bank of India and Another vs Charanjit

Case No.: First Appeal No. 26/2022

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr Ashish Jamalta

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Ajay Thakur, Mr Atharv Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download Order