Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Happy Rayna Stephany, Mahinda Arkyasa
Bank Central Asia (BCA), one of the oldest and biggest banks in Indonesia, is facing a lawsuit regarding an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) malfunction and the way they subsequently addressed the problem.
Kemala Atmojo filed the lawsuit on 21 November 2012 at the Central Jakarta District Court, alleging that the ATM caused him financial losses while the bank then handled the issue in some unacceptable ways.
The incident began on 13 August 2012, Kemala explained, when he went to make a withdrawal using a BCA ATM at Tamini Square shopping mall.
After entering his personal identification number, following the ATM instructions, and requesting funds of IDR 1,250,000 from his debit account, a message was displayed saying that the machine could not process the request.
Kemala then exited from the screen and tried the ATM right next to it, where he made a successful withdrawal of IDR 1,250,000.
Then, looking at his account information on 23 August 2012, he discovered that BCA debited the money not once but twice from his account; once on 13 August, and then again on the 23rd of that month.
Kemala contacted BCA via telephone and then, being rebuffed, went down to a BCA branch office in Kuningan to resolve the issue.
The bank officer told him that although his first transaction had technically failed, the money was in fact discharged from the ATM.
A written statement from BCA said that he had done two successful cash transactions; one at 12:11:26 AM and the second a few minutes later, at 12:52:54 AM.
Yet apparently BCA debited the transactions from his accounts on different days; the first on 13 August, and the second on the 23rd of that month.
The bank apparently told him that, to correct the initial failure, they debited his account on 23 August in order to correct the mistake.
Finding that response unacceptable, Kemala sent an objection letter to BCA along with a request for permission to review the recordings of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) overlooking the ATM.
The request was granted and the recordings were sent.
Kemala found that the times of the supposed transactions did not actually match the withdrawal times stated by BCA.
Having reached a threshold, he decided to bring the case to court. Proceedings began on 7 January 2013.
After the first proceedings (7/1), Kemala told reporters that, “the main aim of the lawsuit is not compensation for my losses, but to make BCA take responsibility for the incident and unclear complaint handling process.”
When interviewed by Hukumonline after the proceedings, BCA attorney Filisia Konifianti said only that “BCA will honor the court by abiding with court procedures.”
(eli)
Happy Rayna Stephany, Mahinda Arkyasa
Bank Central Asia (BCA), one of the oldest and biggest banks in Indonesia, is facing a lawsuit regarding an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) malfunction and the way they subsequently addressed the problem.
Kemala Atmojo filed the lawsuit on 21 November 2012 at the Central Jakarta District Court, alleging that the ATM caused him financial losses while the bank then handled the issue in some unacceptable ways.
The incident began on 13 August 2012, Kemala explained, when he went to make a withdrawal using a BCA ATM at Tamini Square shopping mall.
After entering his personal identification number, following the ATM instructions, and requesting funds of IDR 1,250,000 from his debit account, a message was displayed saying that the machine could not process the request.
Kemala then exited from the screen and tried the ATM right next to it, where he made a successful withdrawal of IDR 1,250,000.
Then, looking at his account information on 23 August 2012, he discovered that BCA debited the money not once but twice from his account; once on 13 August, and then again on the 23rd of that month.
Kemala contacted BCA via telephone and then, being rebuffed, went down to a BCA branch office in Kuningan to resolve the issue.
The bank officer told him that although his first transaction had technically failed, the money was in fact discharged from the ATM.
A written statement from BCA said that he had done two successful cash transactions; one at 12:11:26 AM and the second a few minutes later, at 12:52:54 AM.
Yet apparently BCA debited the transactions from his accounts on different days; the first on 13 August, and the second on the 23rd of that month.
The bank apparently told him that, to correct the initial failure, they debited his account on 23 August in order to correct the mistake.
Finding that response unacceptable, Kemala sent an objection letter to BCA along with a request for permission to review the recordings of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) overlooking the ATM.
The request was granted and the recordings were sent.
Kemala found that the times of the supposed transactions did not actually match the withdrawal times stated by BCA.
Having reached a threshold, he decided to bring the case to court. Proceedings began on 7 January 2013.
After the first proceedings (7/1), Kemala told reporters that, “the main aim of the lawsuit is not compensation for my losses, but to make BCA take responsibility for the incident and unclear complaint handling process.”
When interviewed by Hukumonline after the proceedings, BCA attorney Filisia Konifianti said only that “BCA will honor the court by abiding with court procedures.”
(eli)