A Kerala consumer commission has mandated Union Bank of India to refund a customer ₹10,000 after a failed ATM transaction, highlighting the importance of transaction records and the rising scrutiny of bank accountability in failed cash withdrawals.
A consumer commission in Kerala has ordered Union Bank of India to refund ₹10,000 to a customer after an ATM withdrawal was debited from his account but no cash came out, underscoring how disputes over failed transactions can turn on records the bank cannot produce. According to the commission’s July 27 order, P.K. Sathian tried to withdraw ₹10,000 from a Union Bank ATM on Kallai Road in Kozhikode on July 28, 2022, but received nothing even though the money left his savings account.
Sathian said he alerted the bank immediately and followed up with written complaints to the Cherootty Road branch on July 30, 2022, and to the Kallai Road branch on Aug. 12, 2022. He later took the matter to the district consumer forum after, he said, the bank failed to return the money or settle the complaint.
Union Bank argued that the withdrawal had been completed and pointed to the ATM’s Electronic Journal, or EJ, as proof. The bench, led by President Priya S and member V. Balakrishnan, rejected that position, saying the bank did not provide CCTV footage from the machine. The panel said the video record would have been the clearest evidence of whether cash was actually dispensed, while the EJ alone was not enough to prove the customer had received the money.
The commission found that the bank had not properly dealt with the repeated complaints and held that this amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It ordered the lender to return the ₹10,000 within 30 days and pay ₹5,000 in compensation, with 9% annual interest on the refund amount if payment is delayed beyond that period.
The ruling fits a broader pattern of consumer courts treating failed ATM withdrawals as serious service lapses when banks cannot produce complete transaction records. The Indian Express reported a similar case in Tamil Nadu in which a commission ordered a refund and compensation after an ATM showed a transaction failure but still debited the account, while a separate case in Punjab ended with State Bank of India being told to refund money after only part of a withdrawal was dispensed. Other recent consumer rulings, including cases in Nagpur and Noida, have also placed the burden on banks to show that disputed ATM transactions were handled properly and that customers received swift redress.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to inform and educate, not to recommend or endorse any financial product, investment or strategy. Please consider your own financial circumstances and seek professional advice where appropriate before making financial decisions.
