Rohtak: In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Rohtak, Haryana, has held the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for deficiency in service and directed the bank to refund ₹1.72 lakh to a 51-year-old woman. The Commission found that a ₹75,000 cash deposit was allegedly never credited to her account, while ₹87,000 was reportedly withdrawn without her authorisation. The bank has been ordered to refund both amounts with 9% annual interest, along with ₹5,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses, within 30 days.
The case relates to Saroj Rani, a resident of Haryana, who filed a complaint against SBI’s Bhalout branch in 2019. She alleged that although she had deposited ₹75,000 into her bank account and possessed the deposit receipt, the amount was never reflected in her account. Later, when she visited the branch to withdraw money, she discovered that the expected balance was missing. Further scrutiny revealed that ₹87,000 had been withdrawn from her account on multiple occasions between August and October 2019, withdrawals she claimed were completely unauthorised.
According to the complaint, Saroj Rani approached the branch manager, who allegedly informed her that a bank employee had illegally withdrawn money from her account and had also failed to credit her earlier cash deposit. She claimed the branch assured her that the amount would be refunded, but despite repeated follow-ups, no action was taken. Left without any resolution, she approached the District Consumer Commission seeking legal relief.
Before the Commission, the complainant accused the bank and the branch manager of negligence, deficiency in service and causing mental harassment. She sought recovery of the missing amount, compensation and other appropriate relief. In response, SBI argued that its records reflected the deposits and withdrawals and submitted that an internal inquiry into the alleged fraud was still pending. The bank stated that further action would be taken once the investigation by higher authorities was completed and denied the remaining allegations.
During the proceedings, however, the Commission observed that while the bank admitted an inquiry was underway, it failed to produce any First Information Report (FIR), internal inquiry report, investigation findings or documentary evidence showing that action had been initiated against the employee allegedly involved in the fraudulent transactions. The Commission noted that the available material indicated insufficient accountability and inadequate action regarding the alleged fraud affecting the complainant and other account holders.
In its order, the Commission held that a bank is legally responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees and has a duty to safeguard customers’ deposits. It observed that if a bank fails to prevent or promptly rectify alleged fraudulent acts committed by its staff, it can be held liable for deficiency in service under consumer protection laws. On this basis, the Commission directed SBI to refund both the ₹75,000 deposit and the ₹87,000 allegedly withdrawn, along with 9% annual interest calculated from the respective dates of deposit and withdrawal until actual payment.
The Commission further ordered the bank to pay ₹5,000 as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant, as well as ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses. It clarified that the entire amount must be paid within 30 days from receipt of the order.
Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the accountability of banks in protecting customers’ funds and sends a strong message that financial institutions cannot escape responsibility where alleged fraud involves their own employees. They note that if a customer’s deposit is not credited or unauthorised withdrawals occur due to alleged employee misconduct, the bank may be held liable under consumer protection laws. Experts also advise customers to preserve deposit receipts, account statements and transaction records, and to promptly approach the bank, the Banking Ombudsman or the Consumer Commission if they encounter similar grievances.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
