However, the commission granted partial relief to SBI by setting aside the Rs 25,000 compensation awarded earlier for mental harassment. A bench comprising Judicial Members Nirmal Singh Medtwal and Mukesh, along with Member Ramanivas Saraswat, was hearing SBI’s appeal against the March 21, 2024 judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhunjhunu, challenging the district forum’s findings holding the bank liable for the fraudulent ATM withdrawals from one Mahendra Kumar’s account maintained at SBI’s Mandawa branch in Rajasthan. “The conclusion drawn by the District Consumer Commission that fraud had indeed occurred with the complainant appears correct,” the state consumer commission said on May 20, rejecting SBI’s contention that the customer himself was responsible for the disputed transactions. State commission rejects SBI’s defence The state commission, however, found no convincing material to show that the complainant had shared confidential payment credentials with anyone. It observed that although the complainant’s son may have occasionally used the ATM card, that by itself did not prove authorization for the fraudulent transactions. The bench noted that SBI itself admitted …