Money debited but cash not received from ATM: Consumer Commission ordered bank to pay Rs 15,000 compensation; here's why customer won

A Kozhikode consumer commission has ordered Union Bank of India to pay Rs 15,000 to a customer whose account was debited Rs 10,000 at an ATM he says dispensed no cash, after finding the bank failed to produce CCTV footage to prove its claim that the money was received.

The order was passed on 27 July 2026 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode, more than three years after the complaint was filed in February 2023.

What Happened at the Union Bank of India ATM


On 28 July 2022, at around 11:30 AM, the complainant visited a Union Bank of India ATM at Parco Building, Kallai Road, Kozhikode, to withdraw Rs 10,000 from his savings account. He said the transaction went through, his account was debited, but no cash came out of the machine.

He wrote to the bank's Cherootty Road branch on 30 July 2022 and followed up with another complaint to the Kallai Road branch on 12 August 2022. Both letters were submitted as evidence before the commission. According to him, the branch manager told him the money would come. It never did.

With no resolution from the bank, he filed a complaint before the commission in February 2023.

What Union Bank of India Said

Union Bank of India contested the complaint. Its chief manager appeared as a witness and submitted an EJ statement, an electronic journal record of ATM transactions, as evidence. The bank's position was that its records showed the cash had been dispensed by the machine in the presence of the customer. It said it had also reviewed CCTV footage internally and concluded the cash was dispensed and received.

The bank further pointed out that the complainant had previously filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, RBI Trivandrum, which was rejected in January 2023 on grounds of no deficiency in service. A complaint before the Lok Adalat had also been dismissed. The bank argued the complainant had approached the commission after receiving unfavourable orders from both forums, without disclosing those outcomes.

Why Did the Customer Win the ATM Dispute

The commission's finding turned on a straightforward evidentiary question: if the bank had CCTV footage showing the cash was received, why was it not placed before the commission?

The commission held that CCTV footage is the conclusive proof to establish whether the amount was received by the complainant or not. The bank referred to having reviewed the footage internally but did not submit it as evidence. The EJ statement alone, the commission found, was not comprehensive proof that the money was actually received by the complainant.

The commission also noted that during cross-examination, the bank's attempt to establish that the complainant was at fault did not succeed. It found that he had made repeated and documented efforts to recover the money and that the bank had failed to address his concerns despite being approached multiple times.

On these findings, the commission held there was proof of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Union Bank of India.

Can a Bank Use EJ Statement Alone as ATM Proof

This case adds to a pattern of consumer commission rulings where banks have relied solely on internal electronic records to dispute ATM cash complaints without supporting those claims with CCTV evidence. Commissions across India have increasingly held that an EJ statement, while relevant, is not by itself sufficient to override a customer's sworn testimony that cash was not received, particularly when footage exists and is withheld.

The RBI's framework for failed ATM transactions also requires banks to resolve such disputes and credit the customer's account within a stipulated timeframe. In this case, no such credit was made.

Union Bank of India Consumer Court Order

The commission directed Union Bank of India to pay Rs 10,000 being the amount debited from the account, and Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience, totalling Rs 15,000.

The bank must comply within 30 days of receiving the order. If it fails to do so, the Rs 10,000 principal will attract interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the order until actual payment. No order as to costs was made.

Check the case judgement here: