SBI fined for refusing refund to Kasaragod welder whose debit card was breached by fraudsters in Bengal
October 13, 2025
The bank refused to refund the money, claiming that there was no negligence or deficiency in its service..SBI fraud case, Kasaragod consumer commission, ATM fraud refund, RBI customer protection, Fraudulent ATM withdrawals, Bank negligence liability, Consumer court judgment, State Bank of India, Jince Jose fraud, ATM fraud compensation, Supreme Court Pallabh Bhowmik case, Liability in fraudulent bank transactions, How to report ATM fraud to SBI, Customer protection against bank fraud, Legal recourse for ATM fraud victims
Kasaragod: The Kasaragod District Consumer Commission has held the State Bank of India accountable for a welder losing ₹50,000 due to fraudulent ATM withdrawals and fined the bank ₹25,000 for refusing to refund the amount, citing the RBI’s customer protection guidelines.
The order by Consumer Commission president Krishnan K and member Beena K G also directed the SBI's Kanhangad branch to return the ₹50,000 with 9 per cent interest from the date of complaint, that is, from March 2, 2019, till payment to Jince Jose (34), a native of Parakkalayi in Kasaragod's Kodom-Belur panchayat.
Jince said he realised the money was gone when the bank on March 3, 2019, sent him a text message about deducting a fine for not maintaining the minimum balance of ₹1,000.
When contacted, the bank told him that his account had only ₹12. All his savings were withdrawn from two ATMs in West Bengal.
According to the bank, ₹50,000 was withdrawn in five tranches: ₹8,000,₹10,000, ₹10,000, and another ₹10,000 from an ATM at Murgasol in Asansol, in the early hours of February 14, 2019. Another ₹12,000 was withdrawn from an ATM at Neamatpur in Asansol the next day. "When I complained to the bank, they tried to put the blame on me, saying I shared the OTP with the fraudsters," he said.
Jince said he withdrew around ₹1,000 from an ATM in Kanhangad late on February 13. There was no way he could reach West Bengal in the early hours of February 14. "Moreover, my debit card was with me, and no one contacted me for the ATM PIN," he said.
However, the bank refused to refund the money, claiming that there was no negligence or deficiency in its service. Jince then moved the consumer court seeking his money back and compensation of ₹2 lakh. The consumer commission found that the bank made no effort to secure the CCTV footage from the two ATM kiosks.
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling dated January 3, 2025, in the Pallabh Bhowmik case, the consumer commission observed that banks cannot evade liability by blaming customers. "The bank must remain vigilant. It has the best technology to detect and prevent unauthorised and fraudulent transactions. The safety of customer deposits is not a courtesy but a fundamental responsibility," said the judgment by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
In the Supreme Court case, Pallabh Bhowmik of Assam lost ₹94,204 after he downloaded a mobile app at the instruction of a fraudster posing as a customer care executive.
The Guahati High Court and the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Bhowmik, saying he did not share the OTP or authorise the transactions.
Apart from relying on the apex court ruling, the consumer commission also referred to Clauses 8 and 9 of the RBI's July 6, 2017 circular, which said that if a fraudulent transaction is reported within three working days, the customer bears zero liability; if reported within four to seven working days, the customer's liability for a savings account is capped at ₹10,000.
Jince said he filed his complaint as soon as he came to know of the fraudulent transactions, but SBI refused to return the money.
The consumer commission found there was a deficiency of service on the part of the bank and directed the bank to pay the compensation, the deposit, and also ₹5,000 as the cost of litigation to Jince within 30 days of receipt of the order.
The order by Consumer Commission president Krishnan K and member Beena K G also directed the SBI's Kanhangad branch to return the ₹50,000 with 9 per cent interest from the date of complaint, that is, from March 2, 2019, till payment to Jince Jose (34), a native of Parakkalayi in Kasaragod's Kodom-Belur panchayat.
Jince said he realised the money was gone when the bank on March 3, 2019, sent him a text message about deducting a fine for not maintaining the minimum balance of ₹1,000.
When contacted, the bank told him that his account had only ₹12. All his savings were withdrawn from two ATMs in West Bengal.
According to the bank, ₹50,000 was withdrawn in five tranches: ₹8,000,₹10,000, ₹10,000, and another ₹10,000 from an ATM at Murgasol in Asansol, in the early hours of February 14, 2019. Another ₹12,000 was withdrawn from an ATM at Neamatpur in Asansol the next day. "When I complained to the bank, they tried to put the blame on me, saying I shared the OTP with the fraudsters," he said.
Jince said he withdrew around ₹1,000 from an ATM in Kanhangad late on February 13. There was no way he could reach West Bengal in the early hours of February 14. "Moreover, my debit card was with me, and no one contacted me for the ATM PIN," he said.
However, the bank refused to refund the money, claiming that there was no negligence or deficiency in its service. Jince then moved the consumer court seeking his money back and compensation of ₹2 lakh. The consumer commission found that the bank made no effort to secure the CCTV footage from the two ATM kiosks.
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling dated January 3, 2025, in the Pallabh Bhowmik case, the consumer commission observed that banks cannot evade liability by blaming customers. "The bank must remain vigilant. It has the best technology to detect and prevent unauthorised and fraudulent transactions. The safety of customer deposits is not a courtesy but a fundamental responsibility," said the judgment by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
In the Supreme Court case, Pallabh Bhowmik of Assam lost ₹94,204 after he downloaded a mobile app at the instruction of a fraudster posing as a customer care executive.
The Guahati High Court and the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Bhowmik, saying he did not share the OTP or authorise the transactions.
Apart from relying on the apex court ruling, the consumer commission also referred to Clauses 8 and 9 of the RBI's July 6, 2017 circular, which said that if a fraudulent transaction is reported within three working days, the customer bears zero liability; if reported within four to seven working days, the customer's liability for a savings account is capped at ₹10,000.
Jince said he filed his complaint as soon as he came to know of the fraudulent transactions, but SBI refused to return the money.
The consumer commission found there was a deficiency of service on the part of the bank and directed the bank to pay the compensation, the deposit, and also ₹5,000 as the cost of litigation to Jince within 30 days of receipt of the order.