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resident Arun Sharma after noting that Rs 20,000, which was debited from his account through the bank's ATM, was never withdrawn by him.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not carried out by the complainant and the amount which has been debited from the account of the complainant was never withdrawn by him.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Sharma said he had given a written complaint to branch's deputy manager informing him that he has not withdrawn this amount on October 28, 2010, and it should be enquired and his money be reverted to his account.

He said the bank, however, failed to make any investigation and gave flimsy grounds regarding the amount withdrawn and showed their inability to do anything on the complaint.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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.