A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Surat has directed a major public sector bank to pay a total compensation of ₹3.28 lakh to a customer, nearly nine years after an ATM transaction error resulted in money being debited without any cash being dispensed.
In its order dated February 26, the Commission instructed Bank of Baroda to refund the disputed amount of ₹10,000 along with interest calculated at 9 percent per annum. In addition to this, the bank has been ordered to pay ₹3.28 lakh as compensation for the prolonged delay in resolving the issue. The Commission also awarded ₹3,000 for the mental distress caused to the complainant and ₹2,000 to cover litigation expenses.
The matter traces back to February 18, 2017, when Jitesh Kumar Gandhi attempted to withdraw ₹10,000 from an ATM operated by the State Bank of India. Despite the transaction being processed and the amount being debited from his account, he neither received the cash nor any transaction receipt. Following the incident, Gandhi made repeated attempts to resolve the issue by contacting the bank and filing formal complaints with Bank of Baroda’s Dumbhal branch as well as SBI’s Udhna branch.
During the proceedings, Bank of Baroda contended that since the ATM belonged to the State Bank of India and the transaction was marked as successful in the system, it was not directly responsible. However, the Commission rejected this argument, observing that the bank failed to produce any evidence proving that the customer had actually received the cash.
The Commission further clarified that internal arrangements or responsibilities between different banks are not the concern of the customer. From a consumer’s perspective, the bank is obligated to ensure accountability and provide clear proof in case of disputed transactions.
It also highlighted that, as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, banks are required to resolve such ATM-related disputes and refund the amount within a specified timeframe. The failure to comply with these regulations in this case contributed significantly to the ruling against the bank.
