The Haridwar District Consumer Commission has held a private bank liable for neglecting to recover ₹45,000 wrongly transferred to another account despite customer complaints, emphasising the bank’s obligation to act promptly in such cases.
The Haridwar District Consumer Commission has found a private sector bank guilty of deficient service after it failed to recover ₹45,000 that had been wrongly transferred to another account, even after the customer flagged the error at once. The panel ordered the bank to return the money and pay ₹10,000 for mental agony and another ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses, underscoring that prompt complaint handling is part of a lender’s service duty. According to the commission, the bank gave repeated assurances but did not act on them.
The case arose after the complainant told the bank that the amount had gone to someone else’s account and was assured it would be recovered within a few days. When that did not happen, he kept following up, only to receive more promises, the commission said in its July 21 order. The bench, led by president Gagan Kumar Gupta with members Amresh Rawat and Ranjna Goyal, concluded that the bank’s inaction amounted to deficiency in service.
The ruling comes amid a series of consumer decisions in Uttarakhand and elsewhere that show how differently banking disputes can be treated depending on the facts. In one recent case reported by The Times of India, the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that neither a bank nor Google Pay was liable after a failed transfer and later unauthorised debits, saying the loss stemmed from the customer’s own negligence. In another dispute, also reported by The Times of India, the same state commission said consumer forums cannot hear bank loan recovery matters once proceedings begin under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
At the same time, consumer bodies have repeatedly held banks responsible where the failure lies with the institution rather than the customer. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has previously said a bank cannot avoid liability for the acts of its employees, while a separate Uttarakhand case ordered State Bank of India to reimburse a customer after an ATM malfunction caused a disputed deduction. More recently, a Delhi consumer commission directed Allahabad Bank to refund money after it failed to properly investigate unauthorised transactions, reinforcing the wider principle that banks must act quickly and effectively when account holders raise a complaint.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to inform and educate, not to recommend or endorse any financial product, investment or strategy. Please consider your own financial circumstances and seek professional advice where appropriate before making financial decisions.
