The Delhi State Consumer Commission has strongly reprimanded the State Bank of India (SBI) in an old ATM fraud case. The commission has ordered the bank to pay compensation of Rs 58,000 to its customer, Mr. Panwar. This includes the principal amount of Rs 20,000, 10% interest for 11.5 years, Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses, and Rs 10,000 for mental stress. This entire case is of 2014, when money was withdrawn from Panwar's SBI debit card three times without his permission at Guwahati railway station. After a long legal battle of 11 years, Panwar has finally gotten justice.

What is the whole matter?

It is January 4, 2014. Mr. Panwar, an SBI account holder in Delhi, was at the Guwahati railway station. He tried to withdraw Rs 1,000 from an SBI ATM, but the transaction failed. Then he went to the nearby Indian Overseas Bank ATM and withdrew Rs 1,000 from there. After this, he boarded a train for Delhi. But as soon as he sat in the train, he received three SMSes from SBI on his phone. These messages informed him that Rs 1,000, Rs 20,000, and then Rs 1,000 had been withdrawn from his debit card. These transactions were done from ATM number 414, ATM 8024, and ATM 40040 of Guwahati Railway Station. Panwar was baffled. How did so much money get withdrawn from his card without his knowledge?

One decision of the government and LIC shares crashed, and investors became anxious.

On reaching Delhi on 6 January 2014, Panwar filed a computerized complaint with SBI. The bank returned the amount of Rs 1,000 to his account, but started procrastinating about the Rs 20,000. The bank said that the transaction of Rs 20,000 was successful, so it cannot be refunded. Panwar did not give up. On January 18, 2014, he complained online and asked for CCTV footage of the ATM at Guwahati Railway Station, so that it could be proved that he did not withdraw the money. But the bank neither provided the footage nor any concrete answer. Panwar went to the bank on February 20, 2014, and complained again, but there was no hearing there either.

Panwar then contacted the Banking Ombudsman of the RBI. Once his complaint got lost somewhere by mistake, he filed a complaint again. But there was no relief from there either. Finally, Panwar gave up and filed a case in the District Consumer Forum of Delhi. He said that the bank did not take his complaint seriously, and his hard-earned money was stolen.

The District Consumer Forum gave the verdict.
On October 25, 2017, the Delhi District Consumer Forum gave the verdict in Panwar's favor. The forum cited RBI rules, which clearly state that if any illegal electronic transaction is reported within three working days, the customer does not have to suffer any loss. This is implemented under the “Zero Liability” and “Limited Liability” rules. The forum ordered SBI to pay Pawar the principal amount of Rs 20,000, 10% interest from January 4, 2014, Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses and Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental harassment. The forum also said that if this order is not implemented within 30 days, the interest rate will be 12%.

SBI was adamant but lost

SBI did not like this decision. The bank filed an appeal in the Delhi State Consumer Commission against the decision of the District Forum. SBI claimed that Pawar did not produce a train ticket from Guwahati to Delhi, so it cannot be proved that he was in Guwahati at that time. The bank also said that it was unable to attend the hearing due to the death of its then-branch manager. But the commission rejected these arguments outright.

The commission said that Panwar presented his bank statements, which clearly showed that the transactions of Rs 1,000, Rs 20,000, and Rs 1,000 were done from the ATM at Guwahati railway station. In such a situation, there was no need to show the train ticket. The commission also accepted the copies of the three SMSs given by SBI as correct, because the bank could not prove that these messages were fake. The bank also claimed that Panwar himself withdrew Rs 20,000, but the commission said that the withdrawal limit has nothing to do with this case.

SBI also said that it was unable to attend the hearing due to the death of its branch manager, but the bank did not even present the death certificate of the manager. The commission observed that the bank was given a copy of the case on May 29, 2015, and was given two months to file a written reply. But no lawyer or representative of the bank appeared in the next hearing. The commission gave another chance, but even then, the bank did not file any reply.

The State Commission gave the final decision.
On May 7, 2025, the Delhi State Consumer Commission upheld the decision of the District Forum. The commission said that there is no mistake or irregularity in the order of the District Forum. SBI's appeal was rejected. If SBI does not appeal further against this decision, it will have to pay Rs 58,000 to Panwar. This includes the principal amount of Rs 20,000, 10% interest for 11.5 years (Rs 23,000), Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses and Rs 10,000 as compensation for mental harassment.

Disclaimer: This content has been sourced and edited from TV9. While we have made modifications for clarity and presentation, the original content belongs to its respective authors and website. We do not claim ownership of the content.