MEDAK: Consumer panel directs ICICI Bank to reverse ₹4,36,632.76 debited from card
MEDAK: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak at Sangareddy on September 18, 2025 partly allowed a complaint by a Medak resident and directed ICICI Bank to reverse two disputed international creditcard debits totalling ₹4,36,632.76. The commission also awarded ₹10,000 to the complainant for mental agony and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The commission delivered the order in CC No. 101 of 2024 after hearing evidence from both sides and considering documentary material filed by the complainant and the bank.
Panel finding and reliefs:
The bench, led by President Suvarna Jayasri with members Gajjala Venkateswarlu and Makyam Vijay Kumar, found a deficiency in service and negligence by the bank in permitting transactions beyond the usage limit set by the cardholder. The commission ordered ICICI Bank (both the Medak branch and regional office) to: reverse the disputed amounts of ₹2,27,808.39 and ₹2,08,824.37 allegedly charged at “Myth Secret Bar” in Bangkok; waive penalties and finance charges levied on those debits; and pay ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 as litigation costs. The bank was given 45 days from receipt of the order to comply. The commission added that any amounts recovered later by the cybercrime police will belong to the bank.
Background of the complaint:
The complainant, Sunkoju Ajay Kumar of Medak town, told the commission he was in Pattaya, Thailand, in May 2024 when he received SMS alerts on May 29, 2024 showing debits on his ICICI credit card in Thai baht (THB 96,000 and THB 88,000). He said his card had a per-transaction usage cap of ₹1,00,000 and that he did not authorise the transactions, had not swiped the card or entered a PIN, and did not receive OTPs for the transactions. He immediately blocked the card, lodged a cybercrime complaint and filed a dispute with the bank and with the Reserve Bank of India ombudsman. The disputed debits appeared on the bank’s statement dated June 8, 2024.
Bank’s defence and commission’s view
ICICI Bank maintained the transactions were voluntarily carried out by the cardholder, arguing that transaction authentication (card details, CVV and OTP) is confidential and the customer bears liability if credentials were disclosed. The bank relied on RBI guidance on limiting customer liability in unauthorised electronic transactions and past consumer-forum precedents. The commission, however, noted that the complainant had set explicit transaction limits and that the bank did not produce records showing it enforced those limits or made the required confirmation calls before permitting transactions that exceeded the cap. The commission criticised the bank’s failure to assist promptly with the fraud investigation and labelled imposition of penalties and finance charges on the disputed amounts as an unfair trade practice.
Procedure and documents
The complaint (filed September 27, 2024) was heard after exchange of affidavits and evidence. The complainant’s documents included SMS alerts, credit-card statements, a card-dispute form and acknowledgements of his complaints to the bank and to NCRP/cybercrime authorities. The bank filed a written version, affidavits and RBI circulars and past orders in support. After considering submissions and documents, the commission pronounced the order on September 18, 2025.
Compliance and next steps
The commission directed the bank to comply within 45 days of receiving the order. It also noted that if the cybercrime police recover any of the disputed funds, the bank would be entitled to receive them.
Complainant: Sunkoju Ajay Kumar S/o Sunkoju Brahma Chary
Consumer commission: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Medak at Sangareddy
Locality: Kummari Gadda, Medak Municipality, Medak Town and District-502110
Bank branch: ICICI Bank, Medak branch, M.G. Road, Krishna Sai Complex, Medak – 502110.
The two disputed conversions recorded in the order were THB 96,000 (₹2,27,808.39) and THB 88,000 (₹2,08,824.37) which together total ₹4,36,632.76. The complaint was filed on September 27, 2024 and disposed on September 18, 2025.
