Banking guidelines categorically state that an ATM card is non-transferable and no different individual other than the account holder ought to use it.
On November 14, 2013, Marathahalli resident Vandana gave her debit card with PIN to her husband, Rajesh Kumar, to withdraw Rs 25,000 from a neighborhood SBI ATM. Rajesh went to the ATM and swiped the cardboard; the machine delivered a slip displaying the cash was debited, however the quantity was by no means launched. SBI cited the ‘non-transferable’ rule and stated the account holder was not the ATM consumer and turned down the cash claims.
Vandana approached the Bangalore IVth Extra District Client Disputes Redressal Discussion board on October 21, 2014, alleging that SBI had did not refund the Rs 25,000 she’d misplaced within the ATM transaction. She stated she had simply given beginning and couldn’t transfer out of residence, therefore needed to ask her husband to attract the cash on her behalf.
When the ATM didn’t launch the cash, Rajesh known as the SBI name centre solely to learn that it was an ATM fault and the cash could be reverted to the account inside 24 hours. With no signal of the cash after a day, he approached the financial institution’s Helicopter Division department at HAL with a proper criticism. However a lot to the shock of the couple, SBI allegedly closed the case in just a few days, stating the transaction was appropriate and the client obtained the cash.
After working from pillar to submit, the couple obtained CCTV footage that confirmed Kumar utilizing the machine, however no money being distributed. They additional lodged a criticism with the financial institution, following which an investigation committee dominated that Vandana, the cardholder, will not be seen within the footage.
In the meantime, Vandana, by way of an RTI, obtained a money verification report of the ATM for November 16, 2013, which confirmed extra money of Rs 25,000 within the machine. The report submitted within the court docket was later countered by the SBI counsel who produced a report displaying no extra money.
Earlier than approaching the patron discussion board, the couple made a remaining plea to the financial institution ombudsman who merely dominated, ‘PIN shared, case closed.’
The case went on for over three-and-a-half years. Vandana stated SBI ought to refund her cash which was misplaced as a consequence of an ATM flaw, however the financial institution stood its floor, citing the rule that sharing ATM PIN with another person was a violation. Additional, the financial institution produced paperwork, together with log information, displaying the acknowledged ATM transaction was profitable and technically appropriate.
In its verdict on Could 29, 2018, the court docket dominated that Vandana ought to have given a self-cheque or an authorisation letter to her husband for withdrawal of Rs 25,000, as an alternative sharing the PIN and making him withdraw the cash. The court docket dismissed the case.
Watch SBI says husband cannot use spouse’s debit card