The Delhi State Consumer Commission has upheld an order directing the State Bank of India to refund Rs 42.92 lakh with interest and pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation to a senior citizen after unauthorised withdrawals in July 2021, saying the bank failed to produce her consent for changing her registered mobile number and upgrading internet banking.The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and member Bimla Kumari were hearing SBI’s appeal against the district consumer forum’s order dated August 11, 2025 directing the bank to refund Rs 42.92 lakh allegedly withdrawn without authorisation from one Shakuntala Mehtani’s savings and overdraft accounts, with interest, and pay her Rs 1 lakh in compensation. The SBI challenged the finding of deficiency in service, arguing that the transactions were carried out by her former accountant and that transaction alerts had been sent to the registered mobile number.“The mere fact that the transactions were carried out through internet banking or that alerts were generated on the registered mobile number cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, establish authorisation by the Respondent (SBI),” the commission said on October 8.Mehtani alleged that Rs 42.92 lakh had been withdrawn from her savings and overdraft accounts without her knowledge or consent. She alleged her former accountant changed her contact details with bank employees’ assistance, enabling transactions despite her “View Only” internet banking facility.Rs 42.92 lakh withdrawnAccording to the complaint, approximately Rs 3.33 lakh was withdrawn from Shakuntala Mehtani’s savings account and Rs 39.59 lakh from her overdraft account. She alleged that former accountant Ajay Kumar Manchanda changed her registered mobile number and email to his details to receive transaction alerts and one-time passwords.An FIR was registered on December 27, 2021, against Manchanda and employees of SBI’s Nehru Place branch. A police status report recorded that the case against Manchanda was pending before the trial court, while investigation into the alleged role of bank officials was still underway.The SBI denied deficiency in service, arguing that Mehtani had used internet banking since February 21, 2018, and had given a third party access to her accounts. It maintained that the registered mobile number could be changed only with the customer’s mandate and that transaction alerts had been sent to the registered number.Story continues below this adThe bank said its ‘Fraud Monitoring Cell’ found no official connivance and cited RBI guidelines dated July 6, 2017, on unauthorised electronic banking transactions. However, the commission noted that SBI had produced no document showing that Mehtani authorised the change of her registered mobile number or the modification of her internet banking facility.It referred to a police status report dated May 8, 2023, submitted before the Delhi High Court, which recorded that the number had been changed with the assistance of a bank official. Written consent was mandatory, but no such request was available with the bank. SBI also failed to establish when, how or at whose request the facility was upgraded from “View Only” to one permitting transactions.SBI appeal dismissedRejecting the bank’s reliance on transaction alerts, the commission said these did not explain how the registered mobile number itself had been changed. SBI, as custodian of the records, had failed to produce the necessary documents. The commission concluded that the bank had not established valid authorisation and had failed to exercise due care. It found no reason to interfere with the district forum’s finding of deficiency in service.The commission upheld the direction to refund Rs 42.92 lakh with interest at 7 per cent per annum from the dates of the respective transactions and pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation. The original order required compliance within three months, failing which interest would rise to 9 per cent per annum until realisation. The appeal was dismissed without an order as to costs.Story continues below this adTakeawayBanks must maintain proper records and verify customer consent before changing registered mobile numbers or enabling transaction facilities. Transaction alerts alone do not prove that a customer authorised disputed withdrawals. Keep banking alerts and complaint records, and report unauthorised transactions to your bank immediately.For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Delhi: 1800-11-4000) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Do not miss out on these stories:Man dies post-hernia surgery in 2014: Family gets Rs 20 lakh payout for negligenceWidow wins Rs 50 lakh insurance six years after SBI Life rejects claim over ‘old illness’Story continues below this adInsurer denied stolen car claim over parking 500m away, man wins Rs 8 lakh payout