ATM card delivery is bank’s duty

Pushpa Girimaji

Last month, I got a message on my mobile saying that Rs 25,000 had been withdrawn from my account at a particular ATM. I was shocked because, first of all, I was at work and had not withdrawn any money and, second of all, I did not even have an ATM card for that particular account, but had made a request for a card. When I complained, the bank argued that the ATM card and the PIN had been sent to my address and that the money had been withdrawn by me! What do I do now?

When a bank sends an ATM card to the customer, it has to ensure that it is delivered to the addressee. It’s for this reason that while delivering the card, courier companies insist on a photo identity card such as a voter’s card or a driving licence or a passport to confirm the identity of the person to whom it is being delivered. They also secure the receiver’s signature as proof that it is delivered to the addressee. The PIN number is sent separately to prevent any misuse.

In this case, obviously, the bank or the courier company has not followed the due process and you have neither got the ATM card nor the PIN sent separately. Ask the bank to show proof of delivery. That will prove your point that it has not been delivered to you. The bank has to take responsibility for its negligence and make good the loss suffered by you.

If the bank refuses to pay the money even after this, what should I do?

Lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman. I will quote for your benefit, a similar case decided by the Ombudsman some years ago. This particular order is extremely important because here the Ombudsman drew up clear guidelines on how banks should send debit and credit cards to the customer.

The bank has to ensure that the cards are not delivered to unauthorised persons, but to the consumer himself or herself. If this is not possible for some reason, it has to be delivered to someone duly authorised by the consumer and not to anyone else. Even here, the identity of the duly authorised person has to be checked before delivery, the Ombudsman said. Obviously, in your case the bank (or the courier) did not follow these guidelines.

In this particular case too, the complaint centered around Rs 25,000 debited from the account of a consumer. While the bank insisted that the amount had been withdrawn by the consumer from the bank’s ATM using the debit card sent to him, the consumer insisted that he had never received the card in the first place. When the bank refused to accept its responsibility for the unauthorised debit, the consumer filed a complaint with the banking ombudsman.

In response to the complaint, the bank submitted proof of delivery of the card and the PIN at the mailing address of the consumer and argued that the card was given to a Mr Narendra and the PIN to a Ms Sumita. Both the receipts bore the rubber stamp of the company where the consumer worked. The subsequent use of the card at the ATM proved that it was used by an authorised person and the bank was not responsible for any consequences in this regard, the bank argued.

The Ombudsman held that the bank could not escape liability by stating that the card and the PIN were delivered to the mailing address of the complainant — in this case to unauthorised persons. When mailing cards and pins, the bank had to ensure that it was delivered to the addressee in person or to his authorised representative and only on such authorisation from him.

Concluding that the bank had to take responsibility for the faulty delivery of the card and its consequent misuse, the Ombudsman directed it to pay Rs 25000 to the complainant, along with interest that would accrue to a savings bank account. The bank was also asked to pay Rs 1,000 towards the expenses incurred by the consumer in following up the case with the bank and later the Ombudsman. (The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, Annual report 2007-2008, Customer Service Department, Reserve Bank of India)