Note: If we know our rights, the banks can get sued like almost 24/7 haha! The ATM near my house keeps rejecting my card but other ATMs are OK. So can I sue them? =P
2008/07/18
Bank to pay RM10,000 over failed ATM card
By : Melissa Darlyne Chow
GEORGE TOWN: The magistrate's court yesterday ordered a bank to pay RM10,000 to an elderly man over his "broken" cash card.
Magistrate M. Rajalingam in allowing businessman Lambert B. Samson's claim against CIMB Bank Bhd, held that the 83-year-old should be awarded RM10,000 in damages as he had suffered a loss of reputation and sustained inconveniences, embarrassment, distress, discomfort and anxiety because he could not use his card at the ATM.
Ruling that there was a breach of contractual obligation by the bank, Rajalingam also ordered the bank, formerly Southern Bank Berhad, represented by E.K. Cheah, to pay Samson interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the date of judgment, as well as costs.
In his statement of claim, Samson stated that at 5.10pm on April 10, 2002, while in Kuala Lumpur, he promised two of his friends a dinner treat and he decided to withdraw money from an ATM using his card, known as the Autokad, issued to him by the bank in 2000.
He was told that the card could also be used at ATMs of other banks, namely RHB Bank, Public Bank and Hong Leong Bank.
However, after trying to withdraw money from ATMs of the three banks at different intervals, Samson said he was "amazed, annoyed and frustrated" that he could not withdraw any money, although he had more than RM10,000 in his bank account.
Rajalingam held that the first nail was hammered into the defendant's case when it failed to call an officer, known as Jackie, to testify whether she had explained the terms and conditions of the agreement before Samson agreed to sign up for the card.
"The court finds that the plaintiff has been subjected to humiliation, anxiety and distress as one of the plaintiff's friends, Anselm Charles Fernandez, who is a legal officer with the Attorney-General's Chambers and was at the dinner, testified that he had assumed the plaintiff did not have enough money."
Source:
HERE