BENGALURU: An informal act of letting your partner or a close relative/buddy withdraw money from an ATM the use of your debit card may prove expensive. This is what a Benglauru girl on maternity leave lately learnt, albeit the arduous manner.
Banking regulations categorically state that an ATM card is non-transferable and no different person except for the account holder should 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 local SBI ATM. Rajesh went to the ATM and swiped the cardboard; the gadget delivered a slip showing the money was debited, but the amount was by no means launched. SBI cited the ‘non-transferable’ rule and mentioned the account holder was not the ATM user and became down the money claims.
Vandana approached the Bangalore IVth Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on October 21, 2014, alleging that SBI had didn't refund the Rs 25,000 she’d lost within the ATM transaction. She mentioned she had just given beginning and may not transfer out of house, therefore had to ask her husband to draw the money on her behalf.
When the ATM did not unlock the money, Rajesh referred to as the SBI name centre only to be told that it was an ATM fault and the money would be reverted to the account within 24 hours. With no signal of the money after a day, he approached the bank’s Helicopter Division department at HAL with a proper criticism. But much to the shock of the couple, SBI allegedly closed the case in a few days, stating the transaction was right kind and the client were given the money.
After operating from pillar to put up, the couple received CCTV pictures that showed Kumar the use of the gadget, however no money being dispensed. They further lodged a criticism with the bank, following which an investigation committee ruled that Vandana, the cardholder, is not seen within the pictures.
Meanwhile, Vandana, through an RTI, received a money verification file of the ATM for November 16, 2013, which showed extra money of Rs 25,000 within the gadget. The file submitted within the court docket was later countered by way of the SBI recommend who produced a file showing no extra money.
Before approaching the patron forum, the couple made a final plea to the bank ombudsman who simply ruled, ‘PIN shared, case closed.’
The case went on for over three-and-a-half years. Vandana mentioned SBI should refund her money which was lost because of an ATM flaw, but the bank stood its flooring, bringing up the rule that sharing ATM PIN with somebody else was a violation. Further, the bank produced paperwork, together with log data, showing the said ATM transaction was a success and technically right kind.
In its verdict on May 29, 2018, the court docket ruled that Vandana should 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 money. The court docket disregarded the case.
Banking regulations categorically state that an ATM card is non-transferable and no different person except for the account holder should 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 local SBI ATM. Rajesh went to the ATM and swiped the cardboard; the gadget delivered a slip showing the money was debited, but the amount was by no means launched. SBI cited the ‘non-transferable’ rule and mentioned the account holder was not the ATM user and became down the money claims.
Vandana approached the Bangalore IVth Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on October 21, 2014, alleging that SBI had didn't refund the Rs 25,000 she’d lost within the ATM transaction. She mentioned she had just given beginning and may not transfer out of house, therefore had to ask her husband to draw the money on her behalf.
When the ATM did not unlock the money, Rajesh referred to as the SBI name centre only to be told that it was an ATM fault and the money would be reverted to the account within 24 hours. With no signal of the money after a day, he approached the bank’s Helicopter Division department at HAL with a proper criticism. But much to the shock of the couple, SBI allegedly closed the case in a few days, stating the transaction was right kind and the client were given the money.
After operating from pillar to put up, the couple received CCTV pictures that showed Kumar the use of the gadget, however no money being dispensed. They further lodged a criticism with the bank, following which an investigation committee ruled that Vandana, the cardholder, is not seen within the pictures.
Meanwhile, Vandana, through an RTI, received a money verification file of the ATM for November 16, 2013, which showed extra money of Rs 25,000 within the gadget. The file submitted within the court docket was later countered by way of the SBI recommend who produced a file showing no extra money.
Before approaching the patron forum, the couple made a final plea to the bank ombudsman who simply ruled, ‘PIN shared, case closed.’
The case went on for over three-and-a-half years. Vandana mentioned SBI should refund her money which was lost because of an ATM flaw, but the bank stood its flooring, bringing up the rule that sharing ATM PIN with somebody else was a violation. Further, the bank produced paperwork, together with log data, showing the said ATM transaction was a success and technically right kind.
In its verdict on May 29, 2018, the court docket ruled that Vandana should 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 money. The court docket disregarded the case.
SBI says husband can't use wife's debit card
![SBI says husband can't use wife's debit card]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
June 07, 2018
Rating:
