Skip to main content

Bank to pay Rs 30,000 for wrongly debiting money from saving account

The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by N A Zaidi, said it was the bank's duty to see that the CCTVs in ATMs were placed in such a manner that they could record the identity of the person operating the machine and the amount delivered to him.

The forum asked the bank to pay Rs 30,000, including compensation for causing harassment, to East Delhi resident Arun Sharma after noting that Rs 20,000, which was debited from his account through the bank's ATM, was never withdrawn by him.

"The entire material on record clearly shows that the transaction in question (Rs 20,000) was not carried out by the complainant and the amount which has been debited from the account of the complainant was never withdrawn by him.

"It is the duty of the Bank to keep their ATMs free from any kind of fault, the CCTV cameras should be fixed in such a manner that they could record the identity of the person operating machine and recording the amount delivered by the machine," the forum, also comprising its member Poonam Malhotra, said.
It also said that since these facilities were not in place at the bank's ATM, advantage can always be taken by an "unscrupulous" person of such defects in the machine as it has been taken in this case.
It said the ATM record showed that Rs 20,000 transaction took place at 7.30 AM on October 28, 2010 but as per the complainant, the CCTV footage which was played in front of the branch manager of the bank showed that Sharma had visited the ATM at 7 AM but the machine had not responded.

Sharma, who was having a saving account with the bank's Vikas Marg branch in Laxmi Nagar, had told the forum that on October 28, 2010, he had tried to withdraw money from the ATM at 7 AM but the machine did not respond as it was having some technical problem. However, at 7:30 AM, the amount was debited from his account.

Sharma said he had given a written complaint to branch's deputy manager informing him that he has not withdrawn this amount on October 28, 2010, and it should be enquired and his money be reverted to his account.

He said the bank, however, failed to make any investigation and gave flimsy grounds regarding the amount withdrawn and showed their inability to do anything on the complaint.

The bank, however, claimed in its written statement filed before the forum that Sharma was a "dishonest" man who had successfully taken the money from the ATM.

The forum, in its order, said the bank failed to place on record the CD of CCTV footage of 7 AM to 7:33 of that day.

"The withholding of CCTV footage from this Forum of the relevant time further fortifies the case of the complainant that he has not done the transaction in question.

"There is no report filed by the OP regarding the perfection of the ATM machine and its efficient working in rebuttal of the case of the complainant that it was suffering from technical glitch," the forum said.

Article referred: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-bank-to-pay-rs-30000-for-wrongly-debiting-money-from-saving-account-2000547

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even