Consumer Court Orders SBI to Pay Rs. 7 Lakh to Advocate for Failed Exam Fee Deposit, Cites “Irreparable Career Loss”
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanpur Nagar, has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to pay ₹7,00,000 as compensation to an advocate who was prevented from appearing in a competitive examination due to the bank’s failure to credit his examination fee. The Commission observed that this lapse resulted in “irreparable physical, mental, and economic loss” to the complainant. The order was passed on October 3, 2025, by a Bench comprising President Mr. Vinod Kumar and Member Mrs. Neelam Yadav in Consumer Case No. 550 of 2018.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by Mr. Avnish Verma, an advocate, against the Chairperson of SBI, its Nodal Officer, and the Branch Manager of Krishna Nagar Branch, Kanpur Nagar. Mr. Verma stated that he had cleared the preliminary examination for the Assistant Prosecution Officer (A.P.O.) 2015 conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) and was required to deposit a fee of ₹225 to appear in the main examination. He deposited the amount at the SBI Krishna Nagar branch on December 7, 2015, and was issued Receipt No. 41514396. However, due to the alleged negligence of the bank staff, the amount was not credited to the UPPSC account, preventing him from completing his online application process.
When Mr. Verma attempted to update his details on the UPPSC website, he was unable to do so. The branch officials cited “technical reasons” and asked him to retry after two days. On December 11, 2015, his attempt again failed. With December 12 being a second Saturday and December 13 a Sunday, the final submission deadline passed, leaving him unable to apply for the exam.
Mr. Verma argued that the bank’s failure caused direct career loss, depriving him of the opportunity to appear in the A.P.O. 2015 main examination, and led to severe mental and financial hardship. He subsequently lodged a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, on December 11, 2015, following which the Branch Manager issued an apology letter on April 8, 2016. The Ombudsman later awarded a compensation of ₹10,000, which Mr. Verma declined, considering it inadequate. He then approached the Consumer Commission seeking ₹20,00,000 as compensation for his losses.
Proceedings Before The Commission
The SBI officials did not appear or file a reply despite being served notices, leading to ex parte proceedings being initiated on May 14, 2019. A recall application was later allowed on November 21, 2019, subject to a cost of ₹300, but the bank failed to pay the amount. Consequently, on November 17, 2022, the Commission ruled that SBI’s written statement was inadmissible and denied further opportunity for evidence. The complainant, on the other hand, submitted multiple affidavits and documentary evidence, including the fee deposit receipt, UPPSC notification, Banking Ombudsman complaint, apology letter, and his A.P.O. 2007 marksheet.
Findings and Analysis
After examining the evidence, the Commission held that the complainant’s allegations were substantiated and that he had indeed been deprived of the opportunity to appear for the A.P.O. 2015 examination due to the bank’s negligence. The order observed: “This resulted in direct career loss, which is admittedly an irreparable loss.”
The Commission noted that the Banking Ombudsman had already found the complaint valid and directed the bank to pay compensation, establishing SBI’s fault. It also relied on the bank’s admission of error in its apology letter dated April 8, 2016. Highlighting the impact on Mr. Verma’s career prospects, the Commission referred to his A.P.O. 2007 examination marks, where he had scored 203 marks while the cut-off for his category (OBC) was 212 marks, showing that he had “missed selection by only nine marks.” The A.P.O. 2015 recruitment had 372 vacancies, significantly more than the previous cycle, giving him a “strong possibility of selection.”
The Bench concluded that, owing to SBI’s negligent conduct, the complainant was “wrongfully deprived of a fair opportunity to appear in the examination,” causing irreparable career and mental loss. It further observed that the bank, despite being granted ample opportunity, failed to produce any credible evidence to rebut the complainant’s claims.
Final Order
The Commission partly allowed the complaint, holding the opposite parties jointly and severally liable. SBI was directed to:
Pay a lump-sum compensation of ₹7,00,000 to the complainant for “career loss and physical, mental, and economic suffering.”
Pay 7% simple interest per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing the complaint (October 16, 2018) until realization.
Pay ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.
The Commission directed SBI to ensure compliance with the order within 45 days from the date of the decision.
In conclusion, the District Consumer Commission found SBI guilty of gross deficiency in service, emphasizing that the bank’s failure had irreversibly impacted the complainant’s professional trajectory. The order serves as a reminder that even minor acts of negligence by financial institutions can have serious career-altering consequences for individuals who rely on their diligence and timely service.
Cause Title: Avnish Verma v. The Chairperson, State Bank of India & Ors.
Case No: Consumer Complaint No. 550 of 2018
Coram: Shri. Vinod Kumar (President), Smt.Neelam Yadav (Member)
