Man found Rs 1.3 lakh missing from SBI bank account: Rs 80,000 ATM withdrawal, Rs 50,000 transfer made without his authorisation; consumer commission upholds Rs 1.3 lakh refund

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by the State Bank of India and upheld an order directing it to refund Rs 1.3 lakh to a man whose account was drained through unauthorised ATM withdrawals and bank transfers in October 2018.

The state commission, in its order dated 10 August 2026, found that SBI had failed to produce CCTV footage, transaction logs, or any documentary evidence to explain how the disputed transactions were processed, despite being the sole custodian of all such records.

Also read: Woman took a home loan at 12% interest, but Citi Bank charged up to 16.5% and recovered Rs 12.9 lakh extra; consumer commission orders refund and Rs 1 lakh compensation


Rs 80,000 ATM Withdrawal Without Authorisation

On 12 October 2018, four ATM withdrawals of Rs 20,000 each, totalling Rs 80,000, were processed from the complainant's SBI account. Ten days later, on 22 October 2018, two transfers of Rs 40,000 and Rs 10,000 were made from the same account to a person identified as Mr Sonu, neither of which the complainant says he authorised.

The complainant approached SBI on 22 October 2018, the same day the transfers were made, and lodged a written complaint disputing all six transactions. He specifically requested that SBI verify the disputed ATM withdrawals and furnish CCTV footage from the concerned ATM. A second written complaint was filed on 6 March 2019. SBI responded to neither.

The complainant also submitted that his debit card was never lost or handed over to any third person at any point.

Did SBI Investigate the Fraud?

The state commission found that SBI conducted no meaningful investigation after receiving either of the two written complaints. It neither secured nor produced the CCTV footage of the disputed ATM transactions before the district commission or the state commission.

The commission noted that the National Payments Corporation of India, through Circular No. NPCI/2012-13/NFS/2737 dated 26 March 2013, mandates banks to make CCTV recordings of disputed ATM transactions available whenever sought by a customer. SBI's failure to comply with this obligation was noted specifically in the order.

Beyond the CCTV footage, the commission found that SBI had not disclosed the category of debit card issued to the complainant, had not explained how four withdrawals of Rs 20,000 each were permitted if the applicable daily withdrawal limit was lower than Rs 80,000, and had not produced ATM journals, switch records, or authentication details that would establish whether the transactions were genuinely authorised. The commission observed that SBI, as the custodian of all electronic transaction records, was the only party in a position to produce this material, and chose not to.

On the two account transfers, the commission found that once the complainant specifically disputed them, the burden shifted to SBI to produce debit slips, transfer vouchers, or authorisation records demonstrating that the transfers were made by the complainant. No such documents were filed.

SBI Appeal Against Rs 1.3 Lakh Refund Order

The district commission had passed an ex-parte order against SBI on 1 November 2022, after SBI received notice of the complaint on 24 February 2022 but failed to appear or file a written statement before the district commission.

SBI appealed the district commission's order, arguing it had not been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. It also argued that the complainant had no right to claim zero liability because he had not reported the unauthorised transactions to the bank within three working days of receiving communication about them, as required under RBI policy on customer liability in third-party fraud cases.

The state commission rejected both arguments. On the question of notice, it found that SBI's own staff had received the complaint notice on 24 February 2022 and that SBI's non-appearance was wilful. On the RBI policy argument, the commission noted that SBI had never filed a reply before the district commission and had therefore placed no material on record to substantiate any of its claims.

What the State Commission Ruled on SBI's Liability

The state commission upheld the district commission's finding that SBI was guilty of deficiency in service on four counts: failing to preserve and produce CCTV footage of the disputed ATM transactions as required by NPCI rules; failing to explain how the ATM withdrawals were processed; failing to establish that the account transfers were authorised by the complainant; and failing to act on two written complaints in accordance with regulatory obligations governing unauthorised electronic banking transactions.

The commission said these cumulative lapses completely undermined SBI's defence and justified the district commission's findings. It found no infirmity in the original order and dismissed SBI's appeal with no order as to costs.

How Much Has SBI Been Ordered to Pay?

SBI has been directed to pay Rs 1.3 lakh to the complainant with interest at 6 per cent per annum from 12 October 2018, the date the first unauthorised transactions occurred. In addition, it must pay Rs 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.

If the amount is not paid within 30 days of receipt of the order, interest on the entire amount will rise to 8 per cent per annum from 12 October 2018 until full realisation.

Check the case judgement here: