A consumer fails to establish deficiency in service in unauthorized credit card transactions if the transaction was secured by OTP and the consumer failed to report the fraud within the prescribed timely window.

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint bearing No. DC/49/CC/94/2024, styled as Sh. Pratap Singh Rauthan Vs. SBI Credit Card, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant / complainant was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, as set out in the consumer complaint are that the appellant / complainant is holder of SBI Credit Card Account No. 4726428027598117 issued by State Bank of India, Main Branch, 4, Convent Road, Dehradun. On 08.07.2024, an unauthorised payment of Rs. 19,100/- was made by the bank via said credit card to GOOGLE ADS MUMBAI IN (Pay in EMIs) without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. The complainant had never shared his user ID; password or OTP with any culprit. While going through his credit card statement, the complainant came to know about the aforesaid payment and his account being debited with the above sum on 08.07.2024. The complainant approached the concerned personnel of SBI Credit Card C/o State Bank of India and informed about the fraud, as also sent online message and complaint by e-mail. The complainant had blocked his credit card and internet banking and the said facilities still remain blocked. The complainant reported the fraud to the P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun on 11.07.2024 and also approached bank on several occasions, but he did not get any response from the bank. After expiry of 30 days’, when the complainant did not get the refund of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 19,100/- from the respondent / opposite party, he lodged a complaint with RBI Ombudsman on 17.08.2024. The bank sent an e-mail dated 26.09.2024 to the complainant regarding rejection of his application, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount. This led the complainant to file the consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. The registered notice was sent by the District Commission to the respondent / opposite party on 07.10.2024, but the respondent / opposite party did not appear before the District Commission, hence the District Commission vide order dated 29.01.2025 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the respondent / opposite party.

4. The District Commission, after hearing the appellant / complainant and after taking into consideration the material available on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission as an appellant.

5. We have heard the appellant – Sh. Pratap Singh Rauthan, who has appeared in person before the Commission and perused the record. Vide order dated 13.05.2026, it was directed that the appeal shall proceed ex-parte against respondent, as inspite of sufficient service of notice, the respondent failed to appear before the Commission. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant.

6. The contents of the e-mail dated 26.09.2024 sent by the bank to the complainant, copy whereof is Paper No. 26, are reproduced below:

“RE has submitted that basis investigation, they found that the aforesaid transactions were performed in a secured manner and the same has been validated by SBI Card details and dynamic OTP delivered on registered mobile number. Any card absent (o