A bank that wants to blame its customer for an unauthorised transaction must prove the customer was negligent, and SBI Cards could not, the Delhi Consumer Commission has held. The Delhi Consumer Commission directed the card company to refund Rs 15,000 with interest and pay Rs 10,000 as compensation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi Consumer Commission has held SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. liable for two unauthorised transactions on a customer’s credit card, finding deficiency in service for failure to follow the Reserve Bank of India’s rules on customer liability, and has directed it to refund Rs 15,000 with 7% annual interest and pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for harassment and mental agony. [Rakesh Kumar v. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.]
The order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi, comprising President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Harpreet Kaur Charya.
The burden lay on the card company
The Commission relied on the RBI Circular of 6 July 2017 on customer liability in unauthorised electronic banking transactions. It held that the card company had not met the burden the circular places on it:
“the Opposite Party has failed to discharge the burden placed upon it under Paragraph 12 of the RBI Circular dated 06.07.2017 to establish negligence on the part of the Complainant.”
The Commission found that the complainant reported the transactions without delay and that nothing showed he had shared his OTP or payment credentials with anyone. It also noted that SBI Cards filed no written response within the statutory period; its reply, submitted after the 45-day limit, was not taken on record.
What the complainant said happened
The complainant, Rakesh Kumar, is an SBI credit cardholder. According to his complaint, two transactions of Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000 were made on his card on 23 May 2024 while he was attempting a purchase through an app advertisement for Big Bazaar. He says he told the card company the same day and asked for his card to be blocked.
He filed a cyber-crime complaint on 28 May 2024 and initiated chargeback procedures. His case was that, despite repeated follow-ups, the card company neither investigated the matter properly nor resolved it within the required time. He sought Rs 15,000 with 18% annual interest and Rs 2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment. These are the complainant’s allegations as recorded in the order.
Where the card company fell short
The Commission examined the card company’s conduct against the circular. It noted that the circular requires the disputed amount to be provisionally credited within 10 working days without waiting for the outcome of the investigation, and requires the complaint to be resolved within 90 days at most. SBI Cards, it found, did neither.
On the question of negligence, the Commission cited the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Suresh Chandra Singh Negi v. Bank of Baroda that the bank bears the burden of proving customer negligence in unauthorised transactions. It also cited the Delhi High Court’s decision in Hare Ram Singh v. Reserve Bank of India, which holds that the negligence needed to defeat a customer’s claim must be “gross, utterly reckless and unconscionable”, and that mere susceptibility to fraud does not meet that threshold. It held that the failure to act promptly was a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Directions
The Commission directed SBI Cards to refund Rs 15,000 with 7% annual interest from the date of the transaction, and to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for harassment and mental agony. Both sums are to be paid within four weeks. If the payment is not made in that time, 9% annual interest will run on the entire awarded amount from the expiry of the four weeks.
ALSO READ: Hyderabad Consumer Commission Orders PVR Inox To Pay ₹75,000 Over 22-Minute Ad Delay Before Film
Why the order matters
The order applies the RBI’s customer-liability framework in a consumer dispute over a card transaction. It treats three points as the card issuer’s obligations: showing negligence by the customer before shifting loss to them, crediting the disputed amount provisionally within 10 working days, and resolving the complaint within 90 days. Failure on the last two was itself treated as deficiency in service.
Case Details: Rakesh Kumar v. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. | Consumer Complaint No. DC/80/CC/370/2024 | Commission: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi | Bench: President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Member Harpreet Kaur Charya | Date of Order: 21 September 2026
Appearances: Not recorded in the order.