The commission was hearing a consumer complaint filed by Sanjeev Kumar Nayyar, who had availed a Rs 2 lakh car loan in 2021 and repaid the entire outstanding amount in November 2025. 

‘Negligence after loan closure’

• The commission body noted that despite repeated requests and representations, the SBI failed to discharge its duties and adopted an indifferent attitude towards the genuine grievance of the man. 
• It was added that the rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party for the loss occasioned by it. 
• The consumer body held that ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation of Rs 1 lakh.
• The consumer body noted that the wrongful acts and omissions of the bank compelled the complainant to make repeated visits to the bank and incur unnecessary expenses, resulting in considerable mental stress and suffering. 
• The consumer body directed SBI to refund the amount of Rs 590 deducted as bouncing charges due to the wrongful act and also correct his score under the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited or CIBIL. 
• The consumer body directed SBI to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation as well as litigation expenses of Rs 10,000 to the complainant within 45 days. 
• It was added that the conduct of the SBI Bank amounted to clear deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. 
• SBI, being a service provider, was under a legal obligation to act diligently and protect the interests of its customer, but it failed to do so. 
• The consumer body found that the man has suffered irreparable hardship, loss of valuable time, mental tension and humiliation solely due to the acts and omissions of the bank.
•  It was held that the bank is entitled to adequate compensation for the mental agony, harassment, inconvenience and financial loss suffered on account of the deficiency in service and negligence. 
• The commission body noted that the evidence placed on record was that the entire loan was cleared in November 2025. 

Deduction of Rs 590 and legal notice 

The case of the man was that he took a car loan of Rs 2 lakh for an EMI of Rs 4,100 from SBI in January 2021 to purchase a Maruti Suzuki Celerio. 

It was claimed by the man that he paid the regular EMI every month without any default. He stated that he cleared the entire outstanding loan on November 10, 2025, and the said loan was closed by SBI after making all the necessary adjustments.

It was further mentioned that he also received a no-objection certificate (NOC) on November 10, 2025, from the bank, which was duly signed and stamped by the branch manager concerned. 

However, despite closure of the loan account, SBI allegedly deducted an EMI of Rs 4,100 in December 2025 and again in January 2026. On both occasions, the amounts were later reversed after the complainant raised objections and the bank assured him that the error would not recur.

The problem persisted. On January 20, 2026, the bank once again presented a National Automated Clearing House (NACH) mandate for EMI recovery despite the loan having already been closed. This time, the transaction failed due to insufficient funds, resulting in Rs 590 being levied as bounce charges against the complainant.

Subsequently, the complainant served a legal notice in February 2026 seeking refund of the charges and compensation, but received no response from the bank.

Appearing for the complainant, advocate Sanjeet Singh argued that the repeated recovery attempts after closure of the loan account clearly demonstrated negligence and caused avoidable financial loss, inconvenience and mental harassment to his client.