The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to pay a man Rs 1.30 lakh with interest, along with Rs 10,000 for mental agony and litigation costs, after four ATM withdrawals and two transfers totalling Rs 1.30 lakh were disputed as unauthorised in 2018, with the bank failing to produce CCTV footage or explain how the transactions were carried out.
The commission president, Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, and member Bimla Kumari were hearing SBI’s appeal against an August 21, 2023 order of a Delhi District Consumer Commission (East), which had held the bank deficient in service.
“The District Commission has rightly held the Appellant Bank (SBI) guilty of deficiency in service as the Appellant failed to preserve and produce the CCTV footage of the disputed ATM transactions as well as failed to explain the processing of the unauthorised ATM withdrawals and amount transfers from bank account despite being in exclusive possession of the relevant electronic and documentary records,” the commission said on August 10.
On October 12, 2018, four ATM withdrawals of Rs 20,000 each totalling Rs 80,000 were recorded from the account of Amar Singh. Another Rs 40,000 and Rs 10,000 were transferred the same day to an account held by a person identified as Sonu, transactions Singh disputed.
On October 22, Singh’s ATM withdrawal failed due to insufficient balance. He then updated his passbook and discovered the disputed transactions. Singh submitted a written complaint to the bank that day seeking recovery of the disputed amount. He also lodged an FIR at Mayur Vihar Phase-I police station.
After receiving no response, he submitted another letter to SBI on March 6, 2019. The district commission ordered SBI to pay Rs 1.30 lakh with interest at 6 per cent per annum from October 12, 2018. It also awarded Rs 5,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. If the amount was not paid within 30 days, interest at 8 per cent per annum was to apply until realisation.
SBI argued that it had not been given a reasonable opportunity to contest the complaint. It also contended that Singh had been negligent because he did not report the disputed transactions within three working days of receiving communication about them.
The bank relied on the relevant RBI policy governing customer liability in cases involving third-party fraudulent transactions and argued that Singh was not entitled to zero liability. The state commission rejected the argument, noting that notice was served on a bank staff member on February 24, 2022, but SBI failed to appear or file its written statement.
The state commission noted that Singh had specifically requested verification of the disputed transactions and CCTV footage from the concerned ATM. SBI neither secured nor produced the footage before either consumer commission.
The commission also referred to a National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) circular dated March 26, 2013 on availability of CCTV recordings for disputed ATM transactions when sought by a customer.
SBI was also the custodian of electronic transaction logs, ATM journals, switch records and authentication details, but did not produce them to establish that the transactions were authenticated and authorised.
The state commission held that the district commission had rightly found SBI deficient in service, citing its failure to preserve and produce CCTV footage, explain the disputed transactions, establish that they were authorised and act on Singh’s complaints in accordance with regulatory obligations governing unauthorised electronic banking transactions. The commission upheld the August 21, 2023 order and dismissed SBI’s appeal on August 10, 2026, with no order as to costs.
If you spot an unauthorised transaction in your bank account, report it to the bank immediately and keep a written record of the complaint. In this case, the commission also highlighted the importance of the bank preserving and producing CCTV footage and transaction records when disputed transactions are reported.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi helpline: 011-23379146) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Insurer rejects child’s hospitalisation claim as ‘unnecessary’, father wins Rs 94,000 payout
NCDRC finds 75% disability, man’s acid attack compensation raised to Rs 17 lakh
Leaking nose treatment ends in paralysis? Hospital, doctors ordered to pay Rs 15 lakh to woman
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express (Digital), where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
