A customer is entitled to zero liability for unauthorized electronic banking transactions if the bank is notified within three working days of the transaction, regardless of whether the ATM card was previously left in a machine.

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Ram Het son of Sh. Bish Ram aged about 46 years, r/o H. No. 36, Water Works. Manimajra, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

Punjab & Sind Bank, SCO No. 84-91 Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondent/ opposite party

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:-

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant alongwith appellant in person.

None for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant (now appellant) has assailed the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which the consumer complaint bearing no.31 of 2025 filed by him was dismissed by it.

Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant/appellant that he was maintaining a salary/savings account with the opposite party bank. On 20.06.2024, he visited the ATM of the opposite party bank at Sector 17, Chandigarh and withdrew Rs.1,000/-. After the transaction, his ATM card inadvertently remained inside the ATM machine. On 23.06.2024, the complainant received SMS alerts showing five unauthorized transactions totaling Rs.39,000/- from his account, which he had neither authorized nor executed. Immediately upon receiving the alerts, he took steps to safeguard his interest and reported the matter. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Cyber Crime Cell and also informed the local police. Thereafter, on 25.06.2024, he submitted a written complaint to the opposite party bank requesting reversal of the fraudulent withdrawals. Despite timely reporting, the opposite party refunded only Rs.14,000/- out of the total disputed amount of Rs.39,000/-. The complainant contended that since the fraudulent withdrawals occurred on 23.06.2024 and the same were reported on 25.06.2024 within two days and effectively within three working days (excluding Sunday) his case falls under “Zero Liability” as per RBI guidelines. Alleging deficiency in service and non-compliance with RBI directions, he filed a consumer complaint seeking refund of the remaining amount along with interest and compensation.

The opposite party bank resisted the complaint by filing its written version. It was contended that the complainant himself was negligent in leaving his ATM card in the machine on 20.06.2024. According to the bank, it was the responsibility of the complainant to immediately block the card upon realizing its loss. The opposite party submitted that the complainant did not report the loss of the ATM card on the same day and took action only after unauthorized transactions had already occurred. Therefore, the loss was the direct result of the complainant’s own negligence. It was further pleaded that upon receiving the complaint on 25.06.2024, the bank promptly blocked the ATM card and examined the transactions. During scrutiny, it was noticed that on 23.06.2024 the daily withdrawal limit of Rs.25,000/- had been exceeded. Consequently, the bank refunded Rs.14,000/- to the complainant being the excess over the permissible limit. The opposite party maintained that there was no deficiency in service on its part and that, in view of the complainant’s negligence in leaving the ATM card in the machine and failing to report the matter immediately, he was liable to bear the loss as per RBI guidelines.

The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.

The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record dismissed the consumer complaint. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

The record of the District Commission was requisitioned.

None put in appearance on behalf