SBI Ordered to Pay ₹25,000 for Sharing Customer’s Bank Details Without Consent

The State Bank of India (SBI) has been held accountable for a defect in service by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lakhimpur Kheri, for disclosing a customer's personal bank account information to his employer without that customer's permission.

According to the Commission, a bank cannot give a third party access to a customer's personal banking information without the customer's permission. According to the ruling, this kind of unapproved disclosure is against banking standards and constitutes a service defect.

The complainant, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, had a savings account with SBI’s Hargaon Branch in Sitapur. He was working with Govind Sugar Mill.

A labour dispute was pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. During the case, Govind Sugar Mill filed a counter affidavit containing details of Shukla’s savings account.

Shukla alleged that SBI had shared his bank account details with his employer without his consent. He also claimed that the account statement contained some incorrect entries, which were later corrected by the bank.

The complainant said that the unauthorized disclosure of his personal banking information and the incorrect entries caused him mental agony, physical hardship and financial loss. He approached the bank and sought an explanation and correction of the account details.

However, he was not satisfied with the bank’s explanation regarding the disclosure of his account information. He then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lakhimpur Kheri.

In his complaint, Shukla sought compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and litigation costs.

SBI contended that the complaint was unmaintainable and denied any service deficiencies. According to the bank, Shukla worked at Govind Sugar Mill, and his pay was credited to the employer's bank account.

SBI claims that the account statement was solely given to the employer in order to balance salary payments. According to the bank, the information was disclosed in compliance with banking procedures and at the employer's request.

Additionally, SBI asserted that the complainant's account included no inaccurate entries. The bank asked the Commission to reject the complaint and denied disclosing any private information without permission.

However, the Consumer Commission observed that Shukla’s savings account was his personal bank account. The bank had shared details of the account with his employer without obtaining his consent.

The Commission held that a bank cannot disclose a customer’s personal banking information to a third party without the customer’s permission.

It concluded that the unauthorized disclosure was a clear violation of banking norms and amounted to deficiency in service.

Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed SBI to pay ₹20,000 as compensation for the mental agony and physical hardship caused to the complainant.

The Commission also directed the bank to pay 6% annual interest on the compensation amount from the date the complaint was filed until the amount is paid.

In addition, SBI was directed to pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The complaint against the remaining opposite parties was dismissed.

The order draws attention to a significant problem with bank clients' privacy. Even if a company pays salaries into a customer's savings account, the account is still the customer's personal account.

The Commission's conclusions in this case state that an employer does not automatically have the right to access an employee's personal account information just because they deposit their salary into the employee's bank account.

The case also demonstrates the necessity for banks to exercise caution when answering consumer information requests. Customers may file a complaint with the relevant forum if personal banking information is disclosed without their consent or legal authority.

Read More

RBI imposes Monetary Penalty on this PSU Bank

Bank of Baroda(BOB) has been fined ₹63.60 lakh (Rupees sixty-three lakh sixty thousand only) by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as follows:

the bank had collected interest, higher than the contracted rate of interest, in certain loan accounts.

the bank did not upload KYC records of certain customers onto Central KYC Records Registry (CKYCR) within the prescribed timeline.

Apart from Bank of Baroda, RBI has also imposed monetary penalty on GIC Housing Finance Limited.

In an order dated June 24, 2026, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) fined GIC Housing Finance Limited ₹3.10 lakh (Rupees Three lakh Ten thousand only) for failing to implement a system of periodic review of risk categorization of accounts, with such periodicity being at least once every six months.

Read More

Bank Ordered to Pay Rs 10 Lakh for Losing Customer’s Property Documents

After IDBI Bank failed to return a customer's original property documents, the District Consumer Commission in Kozhikode, Kerala, ordered the bank to compensate the customer with Rs 10 lakh. In 2017, a fire at a document storage facility destroyed papers, according to IDBI Bank. 

The commission noted that the borrower experienced severe hardship and that the loss of the original documents decreased the property's worth. A teacher and businessman who had taken out a Rs 33 lakh home loan from IDBI Bank in 2016 filed a case with the bench, which was made up of President Priya S and Member V. Balakrishnan. He had put the original title deeds to his properties, which included a villa and land, as security for the loan valued at around 1.3 crore.

The commission found the bank guilty of unfair commercial practices and service deficiencies in its order of May 30. It ordered the bank to compensate the plaintiff with Rs 10 lakh. The commission observed that because the bank misplaced the original title documents while they were in its possession, the complainant's lawful ownership rights had been negatively impacted. 

It noted that it was a valid claim to seek damages for such carelessness. The complaint claims that the borrower made extra lump-sum payments in addition to routinely using his wife's account to make loan EMIs. He said that he made the decision to sell the mortgaged property and close the loan account,following the death of his wife, the co-borrower and salaried family member, in March 2020.

In June 2020, the complainant paid Rs 15.1 lakh to settle the outstanding loan balance. Nevertheless, the bank did not return the actual title deeds in spite of repeated requests.

He claimed that the bank gave various explanations at first, first stating that the documents were undergoing closure procedures, then claiming they were lost in floods, and finally acknowledging in November 2020 that the documents had been destroyed in a fire at the Stock Holding Corporation's storage facility in December 2017.

The complaint claimed that he suffered a significant financial loss as a result of the bank's dishonesty, carelessness, and reckless behavior. He said that because the original title deeds were no longer available, he lost a lucrative property sale, had to borrow money and pledge jewelry to return the buyer's advance, and saw a decline in the property's market value.

He also claimed that the bank neglected to take fundamental actions, such submitting a formal complaint or promptly notifying the public about the documents' loss. He claimed that the Banking Ombudsman's participation was the only reason the bank took action.

The Banking Ombudsman ordered the bank in 2021 to give certified copies of the documents, notify the public of their loss, and pay Rs 60,000 in compensation, which included Rs 10,000 for delay and Rs 50,000 for service inadequacy. Despite protesting that the amount was insufficient, the complaint accepted it. He then went to the Consumer Commission to demand compensation of Rs 35 lakh for unfair commercial practices, carelessness, and poor service.

Advocate A.M. Bhaskaran, representing the bank, refuted the claims of carelessness. He contended that the borrower and his spouse had signed a typical 20-year house loan contract and that there was no proof that it was meant to be a temporary arrangement.

The bank admitted that the documents were destroyed in the 2017 fire at Stock Holding Document Management Services Ltd., where many banks and government institutions store important records. However, it argued that the fire was an unforeseen incident beyond its control.

The bank also contended that the Banking Ombudsman had already decided the matter and awarded compensation of Rs 60,000, which the complainant accepted without filing an appeal. Therefore, according to the bank, the Ombudsman’s decision was final and the fresh complaint was not maintainable.

After considering the matter, the Consumer Commission ruled in favour of the complainant and directed IDBI Bank to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation.

Read More

RBI imposes monetary penalty on this PSU Bank

Canara Bank has been fined ₹41.80 lakh (Rupees Forty One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as follows:

Within the allotted time, the bank failed to upload some customers' KYC records to the Central KYC Records Registry (CKYCR).

Even though the last customer-induced transaction in certain accounts was less than a year old, the bank labeled those accounts as inoperative.

In a different update, Puran Associates Private Limited was fined ₹3.10 lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Ten Thousand only) by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for failing to reclassify some accounts as "non-performing assets" during restructuring.

Read More

Allahabad highcourt fines Rs.50000 to bank for freezing customer account

 

If a customer's account credit exceeds their claimed income, Channel Banks will freeze their account. Consumers are becoming irate, and the Allahabad High Court heard one such case.

The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has expressed concern about banks blocking client accounts without good cause. According to the Court, a bank shouldn't act like an investigative body since it functions as a trustee.

Indian Overseas Bank was fined ₹50,000 by a Division Bench consisting of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary. A customer's account was locked by the bank without good reason. The bank was mandated by the court to reimburse the account holder for this sum within four weeks.

The lawsuit concerns M/s S.A. Enterprises, a business that sells fish farming equipment. A petition was filed by the business against the bank. According to the suit, on January 16, 2026, RTGS credited ₹23 lakh to the company's account. 

This transaction was viewed as suspicious by the bank, which froze the account. The bank said that the company had only reported an annual income of ₹5.76 lakh at the time the account was opened. The bank blocked the account as a result, invoking the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The High Court pointed out that no cybercrime report was the reason the account was frozen.

The bank behaved as an investigative agency and took independent action. The Court made it quite plain that banks are not allowed to determine the source of cash on their own. An order from the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Police, or the Enforcement Directorate is required in order to freeze an account.

Additionally, the Court stated that the practice of freezing accounts without a valid justification is concerning. Such acts have the potential to halt corporate operations and harm account holders' reputations.

Read More

Bank Ignored Credit Card Closure Request, Ended Up Paying ₹3.21 Lakh – Know Reserve Bank of India Rules”

After a private bank neglected to promptly close a credit card, a credit card user was compensated with a substantial sum of Rs 3.21 lakh.

The user described how he attempted to close two credit cards in May of last year after the bank lowered the credit limit from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10,000 in a widely shared Reddit post titled "Got Rs 3.21 lakh compensation from Kotak Mahindra Bank for not closing my credit card." The bank charged an annual fee rather than canceling the cards.

The user then filed a complaint with higher authorities. After bringing up the matter, the bank claimed that the cards had never been closed, which led to another round of unanswered emails. The user complained to the Banking Ombudsman because they were frustrated.

The bank’s officer called customer and said: “It’s your mistake. Closure requests are not accepted via email, you should have called”. But I had already submitted a written closure request. Sent follow-ups. Received no response from the bank.”

The user said the bank finally paid a compensation of Rs 3,21,000. But what are RBI guidelines regarding credit card closure? Let’s understand.

According to RBI guidelines, if a bank fails to close a credit card within 7 working days of a customer’s request (provided all dues are cleared), the issuer must pay a penalty of ₹500 per day of delay to the customer.

If a bank fails to follow the guidelines, customers can raise a complaint. The first step is to complain to the bank’s nodal officer. If no resolution is provided within 30 days, customers can approach the RBI Ombudsman.

Read More

RBI imposes Monetary Penalty on Bank of India(BOI)

 

Bank of India has been fined ₹1.85 lakh by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for some currency chest violations. Bank of India's Kanpur Currency Chest was fined ₹1,85,300. 

After anomalies in the way currency remittances were handled were discovered, the action was taken. 

In the soiled note remittance procedure, the RBI noticed problems with counterfeit money, a scarcity of notes, and damaged notes. The central bank chose to penalize the bank financially in light of these infractions. 

Due to irregularities with a currency chest, Punjab National Bank (PNB) was fined ₹5.66 lakh by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) a few days ago.

A lack of notes found at a bank-run currency chest led to the imposition of the penalty.The management of the cash supply in the banking sector is largely dependent on currency chests. They support the RBI in ensuring that money flows freely throughout the nation.

Read More

Two banks based on Gujarat and Maharashtra were fined by the RBI for violation of rules

Two cooperative banks in Gujarat and Maharashtra were recently hit with financial fines by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for breaking key banking regulations. Based on infractions of RBI regulations, these fines were levied following RBI inspections and hearings.

Saibaba Nagari Sahakari Bank Maryadit, situated in Sailu, Maharashtra, has been fined ₹50,000 by the RBI for breaking KYC (Know Your Customer) regulations. 

 The bank failed to upload certain customers' KYC information to the Central KYC Records Registry (CKYCR) in a timely manner. Additionally, the bank did not update some customers' KYC information on a regular basis as required by RBI regulations. 

RBI's actions is Based on the bank's financial statements as of March 31, 2024, RBI carried out an inspection. Following the identification of the problems, the RBI sent the bank a notice requesting an explanation for why a penalty should not be applied. 

Following an examination of the bank's written and verbal responses, the RBI determined that the penalty was appropriate because the bank had broken the guidelines.

Shree Kadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd., situated in Gujarat's Mehsana district, has also been hit with a far higher fine of ₹14.30 lakh by the RBI.

The punishment was applied because of violation of RBI's contribution regulations, the bank gave funds to a trust in which a director's relative had a stake. 

 Additionally, the bank neglected to properly supervise the end-use of loans by failing to verify how some loan funds were used, which is a major violation of lending criteria. 

 The RBI's procedure is Similar to the last instance, the RBI examined the bank in light of its financial standing as of March 31, 2024. 

After hearing the bank's explanation and examining the written responses, the RBI determined that the infractions were legitimate and levied the fine.

Read More