The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanpur Nagar, has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- as lump sum compensation to an advocate who was prevented from appearing in a recruitment examination due to the bank’s failure to credit his examination fee. The Commission, in its judgment dated October 3, 2025, found the bank deficient in service, leading to “irreparable physical, mental, and economic loss” for the complainant.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising President Mr. Vinod Kumar and Member Mrs. Neelam Yadav in Consumer Case No. 550/2018.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed on October 16, 2018, by Mr. Avnish Verma, an advocate, against the Chairperson of SBI, its Nodal Officer, and the Branch Manager of the Krishna Nagar branch, Kanpur Nagar.
According to the complaint, Mr. Verma had passed the preliminary examination for the Assistant Prosecution Officer (A.P.O.) 2015, conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission (UPPSC). To appear for the main examination, he deposited the required fee of Rs. 225/- at the SBI Krishna Nagar branch on December 7, 2015.
Mr. Verma alleged that “due to the corrupt and malicious” conduct and “negligent supervision” of the bank clerk, the fee was not deposited into the UPPSC’s account. Instead, a general receipt (No. 41514396) was issued.
As per the rules, the complainant attempted to update the bank details on the UPPSC website two days later but was unsuccessful. The bank branch allegedly cited “technical reasons” and asked him to try again after two days. On December 11, 2015, the online update failed again.
The judgment records the complainant’s contention that with the final date for the online application being December 13, 2015, he was left with no remedy, as December 12 was a second Saturday and December 13 was a Sunday. This failure, he stated, resulted in “direct career loss, which is irreparable” and caused “extreme mental, physical, and economic loss.”
The complainant subsequently filed a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, on December 11, 2015. In response, the SBI Branch Manager (Opposite Party No. 3) sent an apology letter to the complainant on April 8, 2016. The Banking Ombudsman eventually passed an order on May 21, 2018, awarding Rs. 10,000/- compensation, which the complainant did not accept.
Seeking relief, Mr. Verma filed the consumer complaint, praying for Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation.
Proceedings Before the Commission
The opposite parties (SBI) did not appear or file a reply despite service, leading the Commission to order ex-parte proceedings on May 14, 2019.
The judgment notes that on November 21, 2019, a recall application by Opposite Party No. 3 was allowed, subject to a cost of Rs. 300/-. However, the bank failed to pay this cost. Consequently, on November 17, 2022, the Commission ruled that the bank’s previously filed written statement was “not admissible” (ग्राहृय नहीं है) and closed its opportunity to present evidence due to absence. This order was not recalled.
The complainant submitted multiple affidavits and documentary evidence, including the fee deposit receipt, the UPPSC notification, the complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, the bank’s apology letter, and his marksheet for the A.P.O. 2007 examination.
Commission’s Analysis and Findings
The Commission, after perusing the evidence, found that the complainant’s averments were confirmed. It held that the complainant “could not participate in the A.P.O. gazetted officer examination” as a result of the bank’s failure.
The judgment states, “This resulted in direct career loss, which is admittedly an irreparable loss.”
The Commission noted that the Banking Ombudsman, “finding the complaint correct,” had already ordered SBI to pay Rs. 10,000/- compensation, “proving the bank’s fault.” It also observed that the bank “admitted its mistake” in its apology letter of April 8, 2016.
A key part of the Commission’s analysis focused on the complainant’s potential for selection. The Commission observed:
- In the A.P.O. 2007 exam (with 100 posts), the complainant scored 203 marks, while the cut-off for his category (OBC) was 212, meaning he “missed selection by merely 9 marks.”
- The A.P.O. 2015 notification was for 372 posts.
The Commission concluded, “in which there was a full possibility that the complainant would pass the examination and also be selected, but due to the opposite parties not depositing his main examination fee in the Public Service Commission’s account within time, the complainant could not participate in the A.P.O. 2015 main examination, which caused the complainant irreparable physical, mental, and economic loss.”
The Commission found that the complainant had “proved the averments of his complaint,” whereas the opposite parties, “despite being given ample opportunity, did not present any concrete and reliable evidence to rebut” the claims.
The Final Order
The Commission partially allowed the complaint ex-parte. It ordered the opposite parties, jointly and severally, to:
- Pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) for “career loss and physical, mental, and economic loss.”
- Pay 7% simple annual interest on the said amount from the date of filing the complaint (October 16, 2018) until the date of actual payment.
- Pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards litigation costs.
The Commission directed the bank to ensure compliance with the order within one and a half months (45 days) from the date of the decision.
