Holding that an electronic entry marking an ATM withdrawal as successful is insufficient to prove that money was actually disbursed without supporting technical logs, a bench comprising President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Dr. Rashmi Bansal of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi, has directed Punjab & Sindh Bank to refund a customer ₹10,000 for a failed transaction and pay ₹29,600 as statutory delay compensation, along with ₹20,000 towards mental agony and litigation costs.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Jitender Singh, held a savings account with Punjab & Sindh Bank at its Jawli Branch in Ghaziabad. On December 5, 2022, at around 2:16 p.m., Singh attempted to withdraw ₹10,000 using his debit card at an Axis Bank ATM in Delhi. While he received an SMS confirmation and his account was debited by ₹10,000, the machine failed to dispense any cash. Immediately thereafter, a colleague accompanying Singh used the same ATM machine and successfully withdrew ₹20,000, establishing that the terminal was operational.
Singh approached Punjab & Sindh Bank on December 7, 2022, and subsequently lodged a formal written complaint on December 19, 2022. The bank informed him that its records showed the transaction as successful and denied any refund. Singh approached the branch again on January 5, 2023, and paid ₹590 towards additional investigation charges deducted from his account, with assurances that the issue would be resolved within 45 days. When no resolution followed, Singh escalated the matter to the Principal Nodal Officer of the bank and later served a legal notice on July 14, 2023. Receiving no redressal, he filed a consumer complaint alleging gross negligence and deficiency in service.
Arguments of the Parties
Punjab & Sindh Bank (Opposite Party No. 1) filed a written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint was barred by limitation, lacked cause of action, was improperly valued, and that the complainant had not approached the forum with clean hands.
On merits, the bank submitted that it had logged the dispute on its ATM portal and forwarded it to Axis Bank, which rejected the claim on the ground that the transaction was successful. The bank stated that after Singh paid the ₹590 investigation charge, the matter was escalated to the ATM Cell/Arbitration on January 9, 2023, with a 45-day Turn Around Time, but Axis Bank once again rejected the grievance citing a successful transaction. The bank contended that it had complied with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines and conducted appropriate investigations within its purview, and therefore no deficiency could be attributed to it.
Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear or file written statements, while Opposite Party No. 4 was deleted from the proceedings on February 29, 2024. Furthermore, Punjab & Sindh Bank failed to lead evidence within the prescribed timeframe, resulting in its opportunity to file evidence being formally closed by the Commission on January 2, 2025.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Commission observed that pleadings in a written statement are mere assertions of fact and cannot displace the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant in the absence of supporting admissible evidence.
Examining the regulatory framework, the Commission referred to RBI Circular No. RBI/2010/11/547 dated May 27, 2011, and RBI Circular No. RBI/2019-20/67 dated September 20, 2019 (Harmonisation of Turn Around Time and customer compensation for failed transactions). Under these directives, card-issuing banks are mandated to proactively reverse failed ATM transactions within T+5 calendar days (where T is the transaction date), failing which a delay compensation of ₹100 per day is payable to the account holder.
The Commission rejected the bank’s reliance on system status messages, observing:
“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. In a failed ATM transaction, the relevant question is whether the amount was actually dispensed. The RBI framework itself recognises the specific category of transactions in which the customer’s account is debited but cash is not dispensed.”
Scrutinizing the evidentiary record, the bench highlighted the complete failure of the banks to substantiate the transaction with technical logs:
“No cogent evidence has been placed on record by the Opposite Parties to establish actual cash dispensation of ₹10,000/- to the complainant. No ATM journal, cash balancing report, electronic journal, CCTV footage, switch-level reconciliation report or other reliable technical record has been produced before this Commission to demonstrate that the cash corresponding to the disputed transaction was actually dispensed. It is particularly significant that, despite the complainant having deposited/been charged ₹590/- for further investigation, no investigation report has been placed before this Commission demonstrating the result of such investigation. The Opposite Party has merely relied upon the fact that the transaction was reported as “successful”. Such a bare assertion, without production of the underlying technical or reconciliation record, cannot be treated as sufficient proof that the cash was actually dispensed.”
Addressing the bank’s plea shifting responsibility to the ATM operator, the Commission clarified that the primary customer-facing obligation lies strictly with the card-issuing bank under RBI guidelines:
“The inter-bank dispute between the issuing and acquiring banks could not be permitted to prejudice the complainant’s right to prompt re-credit of his money. It is also relevant that the RBI framework places the obligation of compensation for delayed re-credit upon the card-issuing bank. The issuing bank may, in accordance with the inter-bank mechanism, recover the amount or compensation from the acquiring bank if the delay is attributable to the latter. Such inter se liability between the banks cannot be shifted upon the consumer.”
Because the complainant formally notified the bank on December 19, 2022, the allowable T+5 resolution window concluded on December 24, 2022. The delay from December 24, 2022, until the filing of the complaint on October 16, 2023, amounted to 296 days, entitling the complainant to ₹29,600 as per diem delay compensation under the RBI schedule.
Decision of the Commission
The Commission allowed the complaint against Punjab & Sindh Bank and issued the following directions:
- Refund and re-credit the sum of ₹10,000 debited from the complainant’s account during the failed ATM transaction.
- Pay ₹29,600 to the complainant towards compensation for delayed reversal under the RBI framework.
- Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and inconvenience.
- Pay ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses.
The Commission ordered the bank to comply with the directions within 45 days of receiving the order, failing which the entire outstanding amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default until realization. The bench also noted that any inter se dispute or reconciliation recovery between Punjab & Sindh Bank and Axis Bank must be settled through the applicable RBI ATM network mechanism without prejudicing the consumer.
Case Title: Jitender Singh v. The Punjab and Sindh Bank & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No.: DC/77/CC/153/2023
