Archive · 6 Oct 2026
Himachal Consumer Commission Orders Banks to Refund Rs 20 Lakh
A woman tried to send Rs 20 lakh to her husband, but a mistake sent it to his old loan account, which was already closed.
She quickly told the bank that held the account and asked for the money back.
That bank told her to contact her own bank, and her bank said the other bank had to handle the reversal.
The money stayed stuck for more than two months.
Her husband took another loan by pledging shares to get money for immediate needs.
The woman asked a consumer commission to help.
The commission said both banks had failed to handle the problem properly and ordered them to return the money.
It also ordered compensation with interest and payment of her litigation costs.
The banks had not filed replies within 45 days, so her evidence remained unanswered.
A woman mistakenly transferred Rs 20 lakh to her husband’s already-closed personal loan account at another private bank.
After she notified the beneficiary bank on April 2, the banks directed her to approach each other, leaving the funds blocked for more than two months.
Her husband took another loan by pledging shares on April 24 to meet liquidity needs.
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found both banks deficient in service and ordered the Rs 20 lakh refunded.
The commission also ordered payments of Rs 12,500 and Rs 7,500 with interest, plus Rs 10,000 jointly and severally for litigation costs.
- Who
- A woman, her husband, and two private banks; the matter was decided by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- The commission found both banks deficient in service over a mistaken Rs 20 lakh transfer and ordered a refund and additional payments.
- When
- The woman notified the beneficiary bank on April 2; the commission’s order was dated September 11, with no year specified in the articles.
- Where
- Himachal Pradesh, India.
- Why
- The money was mistakenly sent to the husband’s closed loan account, and the banks shifted responsibility instead of resolving the reversal promptly.
Remitting bank’s position
Beneficiary bank’s position
Responsibility for reversing the transfer
Remitting bank’s position
The woman’s bank said reversal depended on the beneficiary bank.
Beneficiary bank’s position
The beneficiary bank directed the woman to approach the branch from which the transfer originated.
- Amount transferred
- Rs 20 lakh
- Destination
- The husband’s settled and closed personal loan account at another private bank
- Funds blocked
- More than two months
- Beneficiary bank notified
- April 2
- Alternative loan
- The husband pledged shares and took another loan on April 24
- Payments ordered
- Rs 12,500 and Rs 7,500, each with applicable interest
- Litigation costs
- Rs 10,000, payable jointly and severally by both banks
- Reply deadline
- 45 days from service of notice; the banks’ replies were not taken on record
