State Bank of India
Delhi State Consumer Commission has ordered State Bank of India (SBI) to pay Rs 1.7 lakh as compensation to a customer. The case pertains to the time when the bank had deducted EMI bounce charges despite having sufficient money in the customer’s account. The Commission said that this is a case of deficiency in the service of the bank.
Controversy started over car loan
A woman resident of Delhi had taken a car loan of Rs 2.6 lakh from HDFC Bank in the year 2008. He had allowed auto debit (ECS) from his SBI account to repay the loan EMI. EMI of Rs 7,054 was to be automatically deducted from the bank account every month. But the problem started when 11 EMIs bounced and SBI deducted a penalty of Rs 400 each time.
The customer had complete proof
When the woman received the EMI bounce notice, she immediately took out her bank statement. The statement clearly showed that every time the entire amount was present in his account. Despite this, the bank deducted the fee citing ‘insufficient balance’. He spoke to the bank officials several times, but did not get any satisfactory answer.
Fought legal battle for 11 years
In 2010, he lodged a complaint regarding this matter with the District Consumer Commission, but his claim was rejected there. After this he approached the National Consumer Commission (NCDRC). NCDRC sent the case back to Delhi State Consumer Commission. Finally, on 9 October 2025, the decision came in his favor.
SBI’s argument and Commission’s reply
SBI said in its clarification that wrong information was given in the ECS mandate, due to which the payment failed. But the Commission rejected this argument and said that if the ECS was wrong, then how were the remaining EMIs deducted? The bank could not provide any concrete evidence that there was no money in the customer’s account or that there was a mistake in the mandate.
The Commission said in its order that banking institutions should adopt a transparent and responsible attitude with customers. Improperly charging a customer despite having sufficient funds in his account is a violation of consumer rights.