Rs 25,000 ATM withdrawal, but Rs 50,000 debit shown: Man wins Rs 30k court relief

“No fallacy, legal or factual has been committed by learned District Consumer Commission while passing impugned order dated 04.07.2018. This order is affirmed, maintained and upheld. Present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit,” the commission said on June 3.

“The limit for withdrawal through ATM of complainant in one day was Rs 25,000/-,” the commission noted while observing that Rs 50,000 had nevertheless been debited from his account, finding no legal or factual infirmity in the district forum’s decision.

ATM glitch led to double debit

• According to the complaint, Kumar, who had an account with Union Bank of India, attempted multiple cash withdrawals in Panipat on November 27, 2015, using ATM machines operated by ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank at Ram Lal Chowk.
• Kumar alleged that several transactions failed to dispense cash despite the amount being debited from his account. After repeated attempts, he eventually received Rs 25,000 in cash. However, when he checked his account, he discovered that Rs 50,000 had been deducted.
• He immediately approached the bank and submitted a complaint on the same day. He also contacted the banks operating the ATMs, but the disputed amount was not credited back to his account. With no resolution forthcoming, he approached the consumer forum.

Union Bank blamed other banks’ ATM networks

Union Bank contested the complaint and argued that the transactions had been carried out through ATMs belonging to ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank.

The bank claimed that responsibility for verifying whether cash had actually been dispensed rested with the ATM-owning banks.

The bank further relied on switch reports generated through its ATM reconciliation system, arguing that some of the disputed transactions had actually taken place on November 26, 2015, and appeared later because of processing delays associated with inter-bank ATM transactions. It maintained that there was no deficiency in service on its part.

ICICI Bank told the forum that its records showed four transactions by the complainant and that one unsuccessful transaction had been automatically reversed.

The bank maintained that the remaining transactions were successful and fully paid.

HDFC Bank similarly argued that one disputed transaction had failed due to a technical issue but was automatically reversed on the same day, and therefore, there was no deficiency in service.

District commission awards refund, compensation

• After examining the evidence and hearing all parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal, allowed Kumar’s complaint on July 4, 2018.
• The district forum directed Union Bank to pay Rs 25,000 to the complainant, representing the disputed amount, along with Rs 5,000 towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
• The forum also granted the bank the liberty to recover the amount from the other banks if they were found responsible.
• The order further stipulated that if the payment was not made within 30 days, the amount would carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum until realisation.

State panel finds no error in forum’s decision

• Challenging the order, Union Bank filed its first appeal of 2019 before the state consumer commission.
• After reviewing the record and hearing the parties, the Commission concluded that the complainant’s account statement clearly reflected a debit of Rs 50,000 on November 27, 2015, even though his daily ATM withdrawal limit was only Rs 25,000.
• The commission held that the district forum had committed neither a legal nor a factual error while deciding the complaint.

Appeal deposit ordered to be released

As a consequence of the dismissal of the appeal, the commission also directed that the statutory deposit of Rs 15,500 made by Union Bank at the time of filing the appeal be released to Kumar after due verification and identification.

The judgment, pronounced on June 3, 2026, brings to a close a consumer dispute that began with a series of disputed ATM transactions in November 2015, and ultimately reaffirmed the responsibility of banks to address unexplained debits from customer accounts.