Back
Delhi consumer commission holds SBI Cards liable for unauthorised credit card transactions
The , has ruled against , holding the company liable for in a case involving unauthorised credit card transactions. The bench, comprising President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar and Member Harpreet Kaur Charya, found that the bank failed to act on two fraudulent charges promptly reported by the customer, violating key RBI guidelines.
Butter Deal Turns Sour
The case arose on , when complainant Rakesh Kumar, an SBI credit cardholder, attempted to purchase butter through the Big Bazaar app after seeing an advertisement. During the transaction process, amounts of ₹10,000 and ₹5,000 were wrongfully charged to his card. Kumar immediately informed SBI Cards, got his card blocked, and filed a cyber-crime complaint on . He also completed all chargeback formalities, but the bank never investigated or resolved the matter.
Bank Fails to Discharge Burden
The Commission noted that under the RBI Circular dated , on limiting customer liability in unauthorised electronic banking transactions, the . Citing the in
, the Commission held that where a bank fails to prove negligence, it cannot deny recovery. The 's decision in
was also relied upon, establishing that negligence must be
"
"
to defeat a customer's claim.
The complainant never shared his OTP or payment credentials with any third party, and the bank did not place any evidence of gross negligence on record. The Commission observed that the bank failed to provisionally credit the disputed amount within 10 working days as mandated by Paragraph 9 of the circular, and did not resolve the complaint within the 90-day timeline under Paragraph 10.
Key Observations
"The burden of establishing that an unauthorised transaction resulted from the customer's own negligence rests completely on the bank, and not on the customer to disprove it."
"The negligence required to defeat his claim under the RBI Circular... must be — a threshold not met by mere susceptibility to fraud."
"The Opposite Party has failed to discharge the burden placed upon it under Paragraph 12... has failed to credit the disputed amount within the mandated timeline under Paragraph 9, and has failed to resolve the Complainant's grievance within the timeline mandated under Paragraph 10."
Compensation and Refund Ordered
Holding SBI Cards deficient in service under , the Commission directed the company to refund ₹15,000 to Kumar with interest at 7% per annum from the date of the transactions, within four weeks. Additionally, SBI Cards must pay ₹10,000 as compensation for harassment and mental agony. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, interest at 9% per annum will apply from the expiry of the four-week period.
The ruling reinforces the of banks under RBI guidelines and underscores the importance of timely investigation and resolution of customer complaints.
