![\"SBI](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-133198531,imgsize-118938,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/133198531.jpg\" "\\"AI")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on August 10 has upheld an order directing State Bank of India to pay Rs 1.30 lakh to a customer after four unauthorised ATM withdrawals and two transfers were made from his account in 2018. The commission also upheld the compensation amount granted by the lower commission.The commission dismissed SBI’s appeal against the district consumer commission’s August 2023 order, saying the bank failed to preserve and produce CCTV footage and other records that could have shown whether the disputed transactions were authorised.What happened to the customer’s money?<\/span>According to the commission order, the customer had maintained an account with SBI since 2002, into which his salary as a lab assistant at a government school was credited.On October 10, 2018, he withdrew Rs 5,000 from an SBI ATM. His account had a balance of Rs 1,12,472 and another Rs 17,540 was credited on October 11, taking the balance to Rs 1,30,012.On October 22, when he tried to withdraw money from an ATM, the transaction failed because there was not enough balance in his account. He then got his passbook updated and found that on October 12, four ATM withdrawals of Rs 20,000 each, totalling Rs 80,000, had been made from his account.The passbook also showed that Rs 40,000 and Rs 10,000 had been transferred to an account belonging to a person named Sonu on the same day.The customer approached the bank on October 22, 2018 and submitted a written complaint seeking recovery of the money. He also lodged an FIR at Mayur Vihar Phase-I police station the same day. However, he said no action was taken to recover the money.He again wrote to the bank on March 6, 2019, but said there was still no response. He then approached the consumer commission.The district commission held that the bank should have secured the CCTV footage of the ATM transactions after receiving the customer’s complaint. It also noted that the bank had failed to explain the two transfers of Rs 40,000 and Rs 10,000.The commission then directed the bank to pay Rs 1.30 lakh to the customer with 6 percent annual interest from October 12, 2018. It also ordered the bank to pay Rs 5,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.Why did the state commission uphold the order?<\/span>The bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal<\/span>, and member Bimla Kumari <\/span>noted that the customer had approached the bank immediately after discovering the unauthorised transactions and had specifically asked it to verify them and provide CCTV footage.“Upon perusal of the material available on record, we find that the Respondent, immediately after discovering the unauthorised transactions in the bank account, approached the Appellant Bank on 22.10.2018 and lodged a written complaint disputing the withdrawal of Rs.80,000\/- through four ATM transactions and the subsequent transfer of Rs.40,000\/- and Rs.10,000\/- from his account,” the bench observed.The commission further noted that SBI had neither secured nor produced the CCTV footage and had also failed to provide records showing that the ATM transactions were properly authorised.“The Respondent also specifically requested the Appellant to verify the disputed transactions and furnish the CCTV footage of the concerned ATM. However, despite the complaint having been lodged within a reasonable time, the Appellant neither secured nor produced the CCTV footage before the District Commission or before this Commission,” the bench added.The commission also pointed out that the bank was in possession of the electronic transaction records and other documents needed to explain how the transactions took place.“Furthermore, being the custodian of the electronic transaction logs, ATM journals, switch records and authentication details, the Appellant alone was in a position to establish that the transactions were duly authenticated and authorised. However, no such material has been filed by the Appellant,” the commission said.The commission also noted that the customer had said his debit card was never lost or handed over to anyone else. In such circumstances, it said the bank was expected to explain whether the transactions could have resulted from card cloning, skimming, compromise of the ATM or another technical issue.In relation to the two transfers of Rs 40,000 and Rs 10,000, the commission said the customer had denied visiting the bank branch or authorising the transfers. It held that once the transactions were disputed, the bank had to produce relevant debit slips, transfer vouchers or other records showing that the transfers were authorised.The commission noted that the bank had not produced such records despite having them in its custody.It also observed that SBI had received written complaints from the customer on October 22, 2018 and March 6, 2019 but failed to conduct a meaningful investigation or provide a reasoned response.The commission held that these lapses amounted to deficiency in service and agreed with the District Commission’s findings.It therefore upheld the August 21, 2023 order directing SBI to pay Rs 1.30 lakh with 6 percent annual interest from October 12, 2018, along with Rs 5,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.<\/div>\n NEW DELHI: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on August 10 has upheld an order directing State Bank of India to pay Rs 1.30 lakh to a customer after four unauthorised ATM withdrawals and two transfers were made from his account in 2018. The commission also upheld the compensation amount granted by the lower […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11785,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-31"],"magazineBlocksPostFeaturedMedia":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","medium":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","medium_large":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","large":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","1536x1536":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","2048x2048":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","blogsy-small":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","blogsy-small-tall":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","blogsy-small-square":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","blogsy-small-masonry":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","blogsy-medium":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","blogsy-medium-masonry":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","blogsy-large":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg","blogsy-wide":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg"},"magazineBlocksPostAuthor":{"name":"admin","avatar":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8709732a479614e7a8aa24d3eb1b239f30dc6d90c61464ed495001e7a469d856?s=96&d=mm&r=g"},"magazineBlocksPostCommentsNumber":"0","magazineBlocksPostExcerpt":"NEW DELHI: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on August 10 has upheld an order directing State Bank of India to pay Rs 1.30 lakh to a customer after four unauthorised ATM withdrawals and two transfers were made from his account in 2018. The commission also upheld the compensation amount granted by the lower […]","magazineBlocksPostCategories":["\u0b26\u0b47\u0b36 \u0b2c\u0b3f\u0b26\u0b47\u0b36"],"magazineBlocksPostViewCount":1,"magazineBlocksPostReadTime":5,"magazine_blocks_featured_image_url":{"full":["https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg",400,225,false],"medium":["https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg",300,169,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/133198531.jpg",150,84,false]},"magazine_blocks_author":{"display_name":"admin","author_link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/author\/admin"},"magazine_blocks_comment":0,"magazine_blocks_author_image":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8709732a479614e7a8aa24d3eb1b239f30dc6d90c61464ed495001e7a469d856?s=96&d=mm&r=g","magazine_blocks_category":"\u0b26\u0b47\u0b36 \u0b2c\u0b3f\u0b26\u0b47\u0b36<\/a>","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11784\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/11785"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"