Fo­rums Come to Res­cue

Consumer Voice - - Legal Matters -

One no­table case is that of Vidyawanti ver­sus State Bank of In­dia. It came be­fore the Na­tional Com­mis­sion in 2015. On a sin­gle day, sev­eral unau­tho­rised trans­ac­tions hap­pened at one of the bank’s ATMs. It was later found out that some ma­nip­u­la­tion had been done in the ATM ma­chine by a third party. The bank was made li­able to make good the loss of the com­plainant. It was found that in the of­fi­cial not­ing of the bank the ATM sys­tem was re­ported ‘out of order’ due to mal­func­tion­ing for the pre­vi­ous two days. How­ever, the bank had nei­ther locked the sys­tem as non-func­tional nor did they take any ac­tion to re­pair or rec­tify it, mak­ing it vul­ner­a­ble to fraud.

Sim­i­larly, in the mat­ter of State Bank of In­dia ver­sus Sansar Chand Kapoor, an­other case from 2015, the Na­tional Com­mis­sion re­ceived a com­plaint on mul­ti­ple fraud­u­lent with­drawals of Rs 10,000 each from Sansar Chand Kapoor’s ac­count. The ac­coun­tholder vis­ited the bank but his com­plaint was not ac­cepted. His de­mand for CCTV footage was also turned down.

The Na­tional Com­mis­sion up­held the award of com­pen­sa­tion and cost of lit­i­ga­tion, hold­ing the bank de­fi­cient in ser­vices for not pro­vid­ing CCTV footage, which was an im­por­tant ev­i­dence to find out the fraud­u­lent user of the ma­chine.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.