In a significant ruling, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a revision petition filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) and upheld orders from lower consumer forums directing the bank to refund Rs40,000 along with interest and compensation to a customer after an ATM failed to dispense cash but still debited the amount from her account.
In an order issued last month, the NCDRC bench comprising presiding member Subhash Chandra and member air vice-marshal (AVM) J Rajendra (retd) says, "SBI denied that as per the journal printer (JP) log, the automated teller machine (ATM) was successfully used by the complainant and in a single transaction Rs40,000 was withdrawn successfully. It was specifically denied by the Bank that three transactions were made by the customer for a total of Rs40,000. At the same time, SBI did not produce any video or any other evidence which could have been done as every ATM is inherently known to have video facility to identify the individuals using the ATM facility to clarify the contention."
"The district forum as well as learned state commission have gone into detailed evaluation of records and evidence place before it and passed a detailed and well-reasoned order dated 23 February 2015 in compliant case no533 of 2011 and vide order dated 5 April 2016 in first appeal no.301 of 2015 holding SBI liable for refund of Rs40,000 along with interest at 9%pa (per annum) from the date of filing the complaint till realisation along with compensation of Rs2,200 and costs of Rs2,000. Clearly, there are concurrent orders in the matter. The scope for intervention of this Commission in such cases is limited," the bench says.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Kamlesh Rani of Faridabad in Haryana, who held a savings account with SBI and was issued an ATM card. On 17 March 2011, she attempted to withdraw Rs20,000 from an ATM, but no cash came out. She made two more attempts for Rs15,000 and Rs5,000 respectively, but again received no cash. Shockingly, her account still reflected a withdrawal of Rs40,000.
She immediately reported the matter to the bank and was initially assured that the amount would be credited back. While Rs40,000 was temporarily credited to her account, it was later debited again without explanation. Despite repeated complaints to the bank and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)’s banking ombudsman, the issue remained unresolved, prompting her to approach the district consumer disputes redressal forum in Faridabad.
The district forum ruled in her favour, holding SBI responsible for deficiency in service and directed it to refund the Rs40,000 with 9% annual interest. The state commission later modified the order, placing the liability solely on SBI, since the ATM involved belonged to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ), which has since been merged with SBI.
SBI challenged the decision before NCDRC, claiming that the ATM JP logs showed a successful withdrawal and that the machine was functioning properly. The Bank also argued that the ATM card and PIN were used — reportedly by Ms Rani’s husband — and thus, it should not be held liable. However, the commission found no merit in the bank’s arguments.
It held that Ms Rani’s version was supported by the entries in her passbook and the lack of video or transaction slip evidence from the bank worked against it.
In its final order, NCDRC noted that both the district forum and the state commission had thoroughly evaluated the evidence and arrived at concurrent conclusions. It ruled that there was no error or irregularity justifying interference under its limited revisional jurisdiction.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Kumar Maity vs SBI, the commission reiterated that revisional powers are to be exercised only when there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity.
With this, the commission dismissed SBI’s petition, affirming the lower forums’ order and granting long-awaited relief to the complainant, nearly 14 years after the failed transaction.
(Revision Petition No2930 of 2016 Date: 16 May 2025)
I would expect that the bank fixes the problem on its own without having the customer to complain.
If the customer has to go to the consumer court for this - the penalty should be REALLY high - like 10x the times amount if the bank had fixed it on its own.
I do not know of any other way to make the bank own this.
Here is what I do not understand - for something which should be crystal clear (whether video evidence or not) - does the ATM not LOG cash dispensed or not? (If it does not - then it is another separate issue!). I am assuming it DOES log these transactions - and that it should not be difficult to reconcile the cash available in an ATM machine on a daily basis. This reconciliation / log should make it into a non-issue!
Why then does a customer have to even to complain to the bank - leave alone goto a consumer court and fight to get something fixed - which was a broken promise by the bank?