The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held the State Bank of India (SBI) responsible for deficiency in service after the bank dishonoured 11 EMIs and charged bounce fees, even though the customer had enough funds in her account, a TOI report stated. Setting aside the earlier order of a district consumer forum, the state commission on October 9 directed SBI to pay complainant Chhaya Sharma ₹1,50,000 for mental agony and ₹20,000 towards litigation expenses. The order also stated that a 7% interest would be applicable if the payment is delayed.

SBI returned 11 EMIs of car loans

Chhaya Sharma, a resident of Karawal Nagar, had filed a complaint against SBI and HDFC Bank, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. She maintained a savings account with SBI’s Karawal Nagar branch and had taken a car loan of ₹2.6 lakh from HDFC Bank, repayable in 48 EMIs of ₹7,054 each through the Electronic Clearing System (ECS) from her SBI account.

Despite having sufficient balance, 11 EMIs were returned, three marked as “insufficient funds” and eight as “invalid account.” SBI also levied ₹4,400 as bounce charges.

Customer’s complaint

Sharma argued that her account statements clearly showed adequate balance at the time of EMI deductions, yet the payments were dishonoured. She further stated that even after repeated visits and representations to bank officials, she did not receive a satisfactory explanation or resolution from SBI.

She then approached the district consumer forum, seeking correction of the bounce entries, a refund of ₹4,400, and ₹10 lakh as compensation for mental harassment and inconvenience.

District forum’s decision

The district forum had earlier dismissed her complaint, stating that the issue involved technical aspects under the Reserve Bank of India’s ECS guidelines. It concluded that there was no deficiency in service or liability on the part of the banks.

State commission’s findings

However, the state commission reviewed the account records and observed that the complainant had maintained sufficient funds when the EMIs were presented. SBI could not produce any evidence showing insufficient balance in Sharma’s account.

Based on the findings, the commission ruled that SBI was indeed deficient in service by dishonouring the EMIs and charging bounce fees without justification.