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resident Arun Sharma after noting that Rs 20,000, which was debited from his account through the bank's ATM, was never withdrawn by him.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not carried out by the complainant and the amount which has been debited from the account of the complainant was never withdrawn by him.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Sharma said he had given a written complaint to branch's deputy manager informing him that he has not withdrawn this amount on October 28, 2010, and it should be enquired and his money be reverted to his account.

He said the bank, however, failed to make any investigation and gave flimsy grounds regarding the amount withdrawn and showed their inability to do anything on the complaint.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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf