Forums Come to Rescue
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.