Erroneous debit? Move Banking Ombudsman

Pushpa Girimaji

Advertisement

A month ago, I tried to withdraw Rs15,000 from an ATM. Even though the machine did not dispense the cash, my account showed it as ‘debit’. I asked the bank to correct the erroneous debit, but they refused to do so, saying that their computer showed the transaction as successful and there was also no excess cash in the ATM, confirming that the money has been released to me. I asked them for the CCTV footage, but they refused. What should I do?

Closed circuit television coverage of the ATM transactions is one of the most crucial evidence in disputes such as these and the bank is duty bound to give it to you. Write to the nodal officer of the bank and seek his intervention. If that does not help, lodge a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman.

Will it not be better to go to the consumer court?

In disputes such as these, I would recommend the Banking Ombudsman. The dispute resolution process before the Ombudsman is quicker and simpler. In cases such as yours, the consumer court judgments have not been very positive.

A recent order of the apex consumer court is an example. Like your case, here too the bank argued that the transaction was successful as per their records and there was no excess money in the ATM, proving that the money had been collected by the customer. And here too, the bank did not provide the CCTV footage.

Now, it is possible that the money was dispensed after a delay and someone else took it after the consumer left. There are also many ways in which fraudsters collect the crucial information, including the PIN number while you use your card in the ATM and withdraw money. ‘Shimming’, for example, is an upgraded and more sophisticated form of ‘skimming’, through which data is stolen from the embedded chip of your ATM card. In other words, ATM frauds are becoming more and more sophisticated and the CCTV footage therefore assumes utmost importance..

However, in this case, the consumer court at the state level did not give due importance to the CCTV footage and gave an order in favour of the bank. “Merely because CCTV footage was not available does not mean that the money could have been fraudulently withdrawn using the ATM card and PIN. It is not possible for money to be withdrawn by an unauthorised person from an ATM,” said the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The National Commission concurred and said the responsibility of proving that he did not get the money was on the consumer and he had failed to do so (Sandeep Vs Branch manager, Punjab National Bnak, RP No 2298 of 2013, order of Jan 24, 2020). In State Bank of India Vs KK Bhalla (RP No 3182 of 2008, order of April 7, 2011) too the apex consumer court had given a similar verdict.

Contrast this with the complaints resolved by the Ombudsman and published in the annual reports. In a case similar to yours, for example, the Ombudsman found, through the CCTV footage, that the machine had dispensed the currency after a delay of one minute and 28 seconds and the consumer had left by then. Holding that the consumer is not liable for the fault of the machine, the bank was asked to credit the amount of Rs10,000 to the account of the consumer.

In another case, the complaint was that soon after the consumer punched the PIN, the ATM screen went black. There was no security guard at the ATM kiosk and one person watching the transaction from outside suggested that he call the toll free number as his card must have got blocked. Soon after he moved out of the kiosk, he got a message saying Rs20,000 had been withdrawn. In this case too, the bank argued that the transaction was successful, but the CCTV footage proved that the customer was telling the truth. And there was no security guard to prevent fraudulent activity at the ATM. So the bank was asked to credit the disputed amount.

So unlike consumer courts, the Ombudsman will insist on the CCTV footage. If the bank does not have it, it has to pay for the consequences of not ensuring CCTV coverage of the ATM transaction. So your choice should be the Ombudsman.