The East Delhi consumer commission said the bank was liable for the first unauthorised debit but denied recovery for a second charge after the customer failed to block his card.
A Delhi consumer forum has told a bank to pay Rs 54,352 to a customer after finding that it failed to protect his account from unauthorised debit card spending in the Philippines, even though he said he was in India at the time. The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said the bank was responsible for the first disputed transaction and ordered it to refund the money, with interest and compensation, after concluding there had been a deficiency in service.
According to the commission’s September 29 order, the man first noticed a debit of Rs 41,852 for a purchase at a department store abroad, followed later by another charge of Rs 35,686 for toys in the Philippines. He said his debit card never left his possession and that he alerted the bank soon after the first transaction, only to be told the money would be reversed within 15 days. When that did not happen, he moved the forum through advocate Rajesh Sharma.
The bank, represented by advocate Siddhartha Sain, argued that the customer was a frequent visitor to the Philippines and had travelled there in late 2016, making it more likely that the transactions were linked to his own use. It also said he had been advised to block the card after the first complaint but chose not to do so because he wanted it active for another trip. The commission accepted that point, saying the customer’s failure to block the card helped enable the second transaction, even though it did not excuse the bank’s handling of the first.
In its order, the forum said a person’s travel history could not replace proof that a bank had properly secured the card. It directed the lender to refund Rs 41,852 with 6% annual interest from the date the complaint was filed, along with Rs 12,500 towards compensation and litigation costs, but refused relief for the second debit because the customer’s own inaction contributed to that loss. The case sits alongside a series of recent Delhi consumer rulings that have faulted banks and card issuers for failures linked to unauthorised withdrawals, delayed reversals and card-blocking lapses.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to inform and educate, not to recommend or endorse any financial product, investment or strategy. Please consider your own financial circumstances and seek professional advice where appropriate before making financial decisions.
