Hyderabad consumer panel orders Union Bank to refund ₹78,529 in credit card fraud case
HYDERABAD: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, has directed Union Bank of India to refund ₹78,528.97 to a senior citizen after finding deficiency in service in a disputed credit card fraud case. The order was issued on March 18, 2026.
The complainant, Rajendra Kumar Pagidi, 69, a chartered accountant from Begumpet, alleged that four unauthorised transactions totalling ₹78,528.97 were made on his credit card within about 20 minutes on November 12, 2023. He said the card was in his custody and no OTP was shared.
According to the complaint, the transactions included payments to Mobikwik, Google Services and JioMart. Two additional attempts of ₹32,999 and ₹61,695 were declined due to insufficient credit limit. The complainant reported the issue the same evening and lodged cybercrime complaints the next day.
Bank claimed transactions authenticated with OTP
Union Bank of India denied negligence, stating that the transactions were authenticated using valid CAVV and OTP. The bank also said a chargeback claim raised with Visa was rejected and that the customer would be responsible if credentials were shared.
During the enquiry, the commission examined credit card statements, complaint records, call data and bank logs. It noted that the complainant reported the unauthorised transactions immediately and there was no evidence showing he shared OTP or card details.
Commission finds deficiency under RBI guidelines
The commission held that the bank failed to prove customer negligence and did not reverse the amount within 10 working days as required under Reserve Bank of India guidelines on unauthorised electronic transactions.
Allowing the complaint partly, the commission directed the bank to:
- Refund ₹78,528.97 deducted through unauthorised transactions
- Pay ₹10,000 as compensation
- Pay ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses
The panel concluded that the complainant was entitled to zero liability as he reported the transactions promptly and the bank failed to establish that OTP credentials were shared.
