The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kozhikode has directed Union Bank of India to refund Rs 10,000 to an account holder after an automated teller machine failed to dispense cash during a transaction that was nevertheless debited from his account. The consumer panel also ordered the public sector bank to pay Rs 5,000 in compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter.
Failed Cash Withdrawal Initiates Legal Dispute
The incident occurred on July 28, 2022, when a savings account holder attempted to withdraw Rs 10,000 at a Union Bank of India ATM. Although no currency notes were dispensed by the machine, the amount was debited from the customer’s account.
The account holder immediately reported the issue to the bank and submitted formal written complaints on July 30 and August 12, 2022, to both the local branch and the head office. Following the lender’s refusal to reverse the transaction, the customer sought redress through the Banking Ombudsman and a Lok Adalat, but neither petition resulted in a refund, prompting him to file a case with the district consumer commission.
Bank Cites System Logs And Automatic Reversal Rules
In its defense before the commission, Union Bank of India denied any deficiency in service and argued that the transaction was successfully processed. The lender stated that Electronic Journal logs and security camera records confirmed the cash had been dispensed.
According to the bank, ATM software automatically generates a reversal entry whenever cash fails to emerge from the dispenser. Because no automatic reversal was recorded in this instance, the bank maintained that the money had been collected by the user. The bank also highlighted the prior rejection of the customer’s complaints by the Banking Ombudsman and Lok Adalat to support its position.
Lack Of Video Evidence Leads To Commission Ruling
A commission bench comprising President Priya S and member V Balakrishnan ruled on July 27 that Electronic Journal records alone are insufficient to prove that a customer actually received physical currency.
The panel emphasized that while the bank claimed security footage existed to verify the cash disbursement, it failed to submit the CCTV video as evidence. The commission held that the bank engaged in unfair trade practices and demonstrated a clear deficiency in service by neglecting the account holder’s persistent grievances, leaving him no option but to pursue legal action.
