Now even a casual requirement of having your wife or husband withdraw money using your SBI debit card could be a costly affair. Recently, a case surfaced where a Bengaluru based woman was on maternity leave when she asked her husband to withdraw some cash using her ATM card and learnt a big lesson.
As per the rules set by bank authorities, your ATM card is deemed as a non-transferable asset that cannot be used by anyone other than the owner of the account. The incident happened dated 14th November 2013 when a resident of Marathahalli named Vandana asked her husband named Rajesh Kumar to withdraw a sum of INR 25,000 from the SBI ATM. Upon swiping the card, the money was debited from the account but Rajesh didn’t receive any money from the ATM. Upon registering a complaint with SBI, the bank turned down the request stating that the account holder wasn’t using the ATM card.
On 21st October 2014, the couple approached Bangalore IVth Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging that the bank had denied her request to revert the 25,000 which was lost during an ATM transaction. Given the fact that Vandana was unable to move out from the house due to post-partum issues, she had asked her spouse to withdraw the amount.
The ATM failed to release her money due to which Rajesh had to call SBI centre where he was informed that the money would soon be reverted within a term of 24 hours, as it was the fault of the ATM. However, money wasn’t reverted soon which is why he had to approach the Helicopter Division Branch located at HAL to register his complaint.
However, SBI closed the case stating that the customer received his money. A CCTV footage revealed that no cash was dispensed after completion of the transaction. SBI ruled out the complaint stating that the cardholder was not seen anywhere in the acquired footage.
According to SBI, the case was closed because the PIN was shared. The case was being fought for at the court for more than 3 years. While Vandana cited that it was a flaw in the ATM, the bank refused from refunding the money stating that it was complete violation of the rules for use of ATM.
A final verdict by the court stated that the account owner could have given her husband a letter of authorization or self-cheque rather than sharing ATM PIN.