Top News

State Bank of India (SBI) has received a big blow from the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission told the bank to send a female customer Compensation of Rs 1.7 lakh Ordered to be given. This case is 17 years old and tells how a simple banking mistake haunted a woman’s life for so many years.

What was the whole matter?

This story starts from the year 2008, when a woman had taken a car loan from HDFC Bank. He Auto-debit from SBI savings account The facility was given, so that every month’s EMI is automatically deducted.

Where did the problem come from?

But suddenly something strange started happening:

• woman’s 11 EMI bounce are done
• SBI on every bounce Rs 400 fee bitten
• overall Rs 4,400 imposed unreasonable charges of

woman’s argument

The woman did not understand why these EMIs were bouncing, because:

• in their account always enough balance Was
• never had this problem before
• Other EMIs were being deducted correctly

he has his by printing bank statements Submitted to SBI as evidence.

Why did the bank not return the money?

Even after listening to the complaint of the woman, SBI Refusal to refund bounce fees Did it. The bank’s argument was:

SBI’s argument:

• Information given in ECS (Electronic Clearing Service) mandate was not correct
• This is why the checks bounced
• the fee is valid

But the woman raised a strong question – If the ECS mandate was wrong, then how were the remaining EMIs deducted correctly?

17 years long fight

The woman did not give up and fought a long battle for justice:

2010 – first complaint

• Filed a complaint in the District Consumer Commission
• but claim dismissed has been done

National level appeal

• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) turned to
• NCDRC sent the matter back to Delhi State Consumer Commission

2025 – victory finally achieved

9 October 2025 Delhi State Consumer Commission ruled in favor of the woman.

What did the commission say?

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission completely rejected SBI’s argument:

Important findings of the Commission:

• If the ECS mandate was wrong, then how did the other EMIs become valid?
• SBI’s argument not logical Is
• in woman’s account adequate funds Was
• the bank has wrongly charged recovered

compensation decision

The Commission said that the woman:

• Took loan in 2008
• Complaint was lodged in 2010
• 17 years of litigation pain endured

That’s why SBI Compensation of Rs 1.7 lakh Order was given to give.