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resident Arun Sharma after noting that Rs 20,000, which was debited from his account through the bank's ATM, was never withdrawn by him.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not carried out by the complainant and the amount which has been debited from the account of the complainant was never withdrawn by him.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Sharma said he had given a written complaint to branch's deputy manager informing him that he has not withdrawn this amount on October 28, 2010, and it should be enquired and his money be reverted to his account.

He said the bank, however, failed to make any investigation and gave flimsy grounds regarding the amount withdrawn and showed their inability to do anything on the complaint.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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...