It has been stressed a lot many times by the State Bank of India (SBI), that sharing your ATM Card is non-transferable. The rule from SBI mentions that no one other than the account holder should use it. However, a woman from Bangalore who was on her maternity leave learnt the SBI's rule the hard way.
The rule from SBI mentions that no one other than the account holder should use it. However, a woman from Bangalore who was on her maternity leave learnt the SBI’s rule the hard way. |
It has been stressed a lot many times by the State Bank of India (SBI),
that sharing your ATM Card is non-transferable. In fact, the rule from
SBI mentions that no one other than the account holder should use it.
However, a woman from Bangalore who was on her maternity leave learnt
the SBI’s rule the hard way. As reported by The Times of India, the
incident dates back to November 14, 2013, when Vandana, who was pregnant
at that time gave her debit card to her husband, Rajesh Kumar to
withdraw a sum of Rs 25,000 from an SBI ATM nearby. To withdraw the
money, Vandana provided the ATM PIN to her husband. But the series of
events took a different when the ATM machine showed a slip where it
mentioned that the money was debited, however, the sum of money was
never released from the ATM!
When the ATM failed to dispatch the money, husband Rajesh gave a call to
the bank and mentioned the happening. However, the bank responds that
the ATM machine was at fault and the money would be reverted to the
account within 24 hours, reports Times of India. However, even after
days the money never made back to the account. Rajesh made a visit to
the SBI’s Helicopter Division branch at HAL and lodged a formal
complaint. However, this is where the story took a mew turn as SBI
allegedly shut down the case in a matter of few days. The bank stated
that the transaction was correct and the customer received the sum of
money.
The couple managed to get the CCTV footage of the date when Rajesh went
to take out the money from the ATM. The footage allegedly shows Rajesh
at the ATM and that no money was dispatched from the machine. The couple
again lodged a complaint with the bank. This time, an investigation
committee was formed at the bank which ruled that account and cardholder
Vandana was not seen in the footage. SBI recalled their
‘non-transferable’ rule and claimed that the account holder was not the
ATM user, and thus it holds the right to turn down the money claims made
by the couple.
In the meantime, Vandana got her hands on the cash verification report
of that particular ATM for the date November 16, 2013, through an RTI.
The cash verification report from that ATM mentions an excess cash of Rs
25,000 in the machine. Following this, the cash verification report was
submitted to the court. However, SBI counsel produced another report
which fails to show any excess cash. Before heading towards the consumer
forum, Vandana and Rajesh made a final plea to the bank, who stated,
‘PIN shared, case closed.’
Being unsatisfied with the ruling, about a year later, on October 21,
2014, Vandana went to the Bangalore IVth Additional District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum. Here she alleged that the State Bank had
failed to make the refund of Rs 25,000 which she had lost in the ATM
transaction. Vandana made claims that she had just had her baby and
could not move out. Thus she gave the ATM card to her husband along with
the PIN to withdraw the money on her behalf reports Times of India.
The case continued for the next three-and-a-half years. Vandana and
Rajesh were still short of Rs 25,000 and stood their grounds that SBI
should refund their money which could not be recovered due to an ATM
flaw. However, SBI continued to maintain their stance and cited their
rule that sharing ATM PIN with someone else was a violation.
SBI produced documents, which included log records. These records showed
that the ATM transaction was successful and was technically correct.
However, the final verdict came from the court on May 29, 2018. The
Times of India report states that the court ruled against that Vandana
and Rajesh. The court mentions that instead of sharing the PIN and
making him withdraw the money, Vandana should have given a self-cheque,
if not an authorisation letter to her husband to withdraw the sum of Rs
25,000
The court finally dismissed the case.
Source : https://www.financialexpress.com/