Back
Delhi Consumer Commission Orders to Pay ₹59,600 for
The , has held liable for after ₹10,000 was debited from a customer’s account in a that did not dispense cash. The Commission, presided over by Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Dr. Rashmi Bansal, directed the bank to refund the amount along with and harassment, totaling ₹59,600.
When the ATM Swallowed the Money
On , Jitender Singh, a savings account holder with , attempted to withdraw ₹10,000 from an ATM. The transaction appeared successful on the screen, and his account was debited, but the machine never released the cash. Singh immediately approached his bank, submitted a written complaint on , and even paid ₹590 for a further investigation. Despite multiple reminders and a legal notice, the amount remained unreversed.
Bank’s Defense: ‘Transaction Was Successful’
argued that the transaction was recorded as “successful” in its system, and that it had forwarded the complaint to , which also confirmed success. The bank contended it had done everything required under guidelines and that no deficiency could be attributed to it. However, the bank failed to file any evidence within the time granted by the Commission, and its evidence was closed on .
Court: ‘Successful’ Marking Not Enough
The Commission found that the bank’s mere reliance on the electronic status was insufficient. No ATM journal, CCTV footage, cash reconciliation report, or any technical record was produced to prove actual cash dispensation. The court quoted the circular of , which mandates that failed ATM transactions must be reversed within , with ₹100 per day thereafter. The Commission observed:
“The mere recording of a transaction as ‘successful’ in the electronic system cannot, by itself, conclusively establish that cash was actually dispensed to the customer.”
It also emphasized that the issuing bank cannot shift responsibility to the . The framework places the obligation of re-credit and compensation squarely on the , which may later recover the amount from the other bank through .
Quantum of Compensation
Since the bank was intimated on , the T+5 period ended on December 24, 2022. The delay from that date until the filing of the complaint on , amounted to 296 days, attracting compensation of ₹29,600. The Commission also awarded ₹10,000 for and ₹10,000 towards , in addition to the principal refund of ₹10,000. The total payout is ₹59,600, to be paid within 45 days, failing which interest at 9% per annum will apply.
Broader Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that banks cannot hide behind inter-bank disputes when a customer’s money is stuck in a failed transaction. In a similar vein, the had earlier ordered a bank to pay ₹70,000 for a comparable grievance, stressing that the home bank must investigate and reconcile with the operating bank, not leave the customer in limbo.
The Delhi Commission’s order serves as a reminder that consumer protection in banking is not optional—it is a statutory and regulatory mandate. For customers facing such glitches, the message is clear: promptly document the transaction, file a written complaint, and if unresolved, approach the consumer forum.
