Jodhpur: SBI Found Guilty of Poor Service in Two Separate Cases, Ordered to Compensate Customers

Jodhpur, Rajasthan: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Jodhpur Bench) has held the State Bank of India (SBI) responsible for poor service in two different cases involving ATM and cash deposit machine (CDM) issues. The Commission has ordered the bank to return the money and pay compensation to the affected customers. Let’s understand the case in detail.

Case 1: Money Deducted but No Cash from ATM

Kailash Singh, a customer, tried to withdraw ₹15,000 twice from two different ATMs. However, no cash came out either time. Later, he found out that a total of ₹28,000 had been deducted from his account.
Even after calling SBI’s toll-free helpline and asking for CCTV footage, he did not get any solution.
The district consumer forum accepted his complaint, saying the bank’s service was faulty. The state commission agreed and held the bank responsible.

Case 2: CDM Deposit Not Credited

In another case, a customer named Omkarnath deposited ₹52,000 into a Cash Deposit Machine at the collector complex in Jaisalmer in October 2018. Although the machine showed that the transaction was successful, no deposit slip was given, and the money did not reflect in his account.

Initially, the district forum dismissed his complaint, supporting the bank’s argument that the machine didn’t accept deposits above ₹49,900 and that CCTV footage was not available due to technical issues.

However, the state commission found inconsistencies in the bank’s explanation. It pointed out that:

• The customer waited for several minutes.
• The machine neither returned the cash nor was any proof of the transaction shared by the bank.
• The bank failed to produce records like opening and closing balances.

The Commission called this a “clear deficiency in service” and ordered SBI to refund ₹52,000 with interest and pay ₹10,000 towards legal costs.

SBI argued that only the police could view CCTV footage and claimed the transaction was successful. But the commission rejected this, saying the bank had enough chances to provide proof and failed to do so. It said not sharing the CCTV footage amounted to poor service.