State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Dikshit Thukral on 5 May, 2026
FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 25.10.2023
Date of Hearing: 21.11.2025
Date of Decision: 05.05.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO. 572/2023
IN THE MATTER OF
HDFC BANK LTD.,
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
LOWER PAREL (WEST),
MUMBAI-400013.
ALSO HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO. 31, NAJAFGARH ROAD INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
TOWER "A", 1ST FLOOR,
SHIVAJI MARG, MOTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110015.
(Through: GBA Law Offices, Advocates)
...Appellant
Versus
MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL,
C/O. M/S. KAILASH MEDICOS,
R/O. 2/49, DOUBLE STOREY,
VIJAY NAGAR, DELHI-110009.
(Through: Mr. Chandan Malik and Mr. Rupendra Kumar, Advocates)
...Respondent
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 26
FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Ms. Nimisha Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant, E-mail:
[email protected].
Mr. Chandan Malik and Mr. Rupendra Kumar, Counsel for the
Respondent, E-mail: [email protected].
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as:
"1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the CPA Act, 1986. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
a. The complainant was holding a credit card since year 2005 and was regularly making payments thereof in accordance with statements generated from time to time without a single default & therefore seeing the punctuality performance of the complainant, the credit limit as it was enhanced to Rs. 1,25,000/- in 2011 & cash withdrawal Rs. 45,000/-. b. On 17.07.2011, at about 8 A.M., while the complainant was in Delhi, received SMS from the Opposite Party wherein it was mentioned that using his credit card 06 transactions worth Rs. 49,994.18/- had been done. Seeing such message the complainant got surprised and immediately contacted the customer care of the Opposite Party, explained his grievance and clarified no transaction having been done by him while requesting for blockage of his card to prevent any further misuse and further requested for cancellation of transaction at which the executive had informed that no payment had been claimed by merchant and further the complainant was assured not to worry and that the complainant won't be charged for that transaction. As instructed, the complainant even filled up the dispute form in this regard and was relaxed as his complaint had been represented as acknowledged by letter dated 19.07.2011 by officer of the Opposite Party. c. Further a fresh card bearing No. 5243681002432626 was issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant upon DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 payment of charges of Rs.100/-. A month later as per due date, the statement of transactions was issued to the complainant by the Opposite Party, receiving which the complainant was surprised to find out that not only the disputed transaction amount of Rs.49994.18 INR dated 17.09.2011 but also Rs. 1749.82 INR on 19.07.2011 as conversion charges was claimed as outstanding and payable from the complainant as an Entropay the said transactions in question of 17.07.2011 complained by the complainant were made in London in USD.
d. Upon receipt of statement the complainant again contacted the concerned division officer, upon which the letter dated 04.08.2011 was issued by Opposite Party stating that investigation was being made in the matter and simultaneously asked the complainant to make the payment thereof, which was surprising for the complainant as the disputed transaction payment was being asked, which transaction was never done by complainant.
e. Again on 11.08.2011 a letter by same officer was received by the complainant mentioning therein that the complainant is liable to pay the disputed transaction charges as during investigation carried by them, it was observed that said transactions were done by an authorized person, which findings of investigation and demand of payment against disputed transaction were absolutely wrong and incorrect contrary to the facts, hence were agitated by the complainant and the complainant protested, clarified of not paying the said amount since he had not entered into any such transaction nor had authorized any one to do. It is pertinent to mention all those transactions were done abroad whereas during relevant period, the complainant was very much in Delhi and cards were also with him.
f. On 16.06.2012, a sum of Rs 8927.83 was deducted from the account no. 13472020008329 of the complainant by the Opposite Party as set off towards the disputed transaction amount without any prior consent of the complainant under the garb of "Right of Set Off and Banker's Lien" which was communicated to the complainant vide a letter dated 01.06.2012 issued by the Legal Manager, Debt Management and Legal Support Credit Card of the Opposite Party.
DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
g. such act of the Opposite Party being arbitrary and unjustified was agitated by the complainant vide email dated 24.06.2012 whereby he had requested for his account balanced to be freed, as no transaction was done by him towards which amount was shown as unpaid and outstanding by Opposite Party and towards its payment Rs. 8927.34 from account of complainant was deducted on pretext of set off. This was followed by another email dated 29.08.2012 addressed to top brass of Opposite Party also besides to Grievance Redressal Customer Care of the Opposite Party, but of no avail, as no communication has been received from the Opposite Party in response to emails of complainant. h. Subsequently the Opposite Party instead of writing off the disputed transaction amount, reversing the entry of deducted amount, have been regular telecalling through its telecallers by Opposite Party for recovery of amount of transaction. Due to unprofessional act on part of Opposite Party, on 06.06.2013 the complainant got sent a legal notice through his counsel in this regard, which was duly received by the Opposite Party but till date no reply has been given nor has any positive action been done by Opposite Party. i. The silence on part of the Opposite Party suggests some malice on their part in this matter, as instead of finding out real culprits and recovering the amount of transaction with interest from them, the said disputed transaction amount with interest is being wrongly mentioned and claimed as outstanding against the complainant towards which part amount has been deducted from account of complainant and towards balance amount demand, for demand of which every other day telecallers of the Opposite Party are making calls causing unnecessary harassment and tension to the complainant and this act of the Opposite Party clearly shows the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party which calls for immediate redressal. Hence this complaint wherein the complainant prayed for following reliefs:
- direct the Opposite Party to write off the disputed transaction amount of Rs. 49994.18, conversion fee of Rs. 1749.82 charged thereupon alongwith reversal of accrued interest charged till date;
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
- Direct the Opposite Party to refund back the amount of Rs. 8927.93/- deducted from account of the complainant alongwith accrued interest thereupon and issue a No Dues Certificate to the complainant and Rs 50,000/- as compensation, Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges.
- to refrain the Opposite Party from forwarding the name of complainant in CIBIL which may adversely affect his credit graph.
2. After hearing the arguments on admission, a court notice was issued to OP No.1 returnable on 10/10/2013, accordingly to OP No.1 appeared and filed a reply taking the following preliminary objection:
a. The Complainant herein has preferred to institute the instant Complaint without there being any deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite party. Pertinently, the Complainant herein has disputed the charges which had been levied by the Opposite party on account of the credit card usage, which even otherwise OP is entitled to, as per law, charge.
b. That no cause of action had ever arisen in favor of the Complainant as can be ascertained from the facts stated heretofore, there is no merit in the Complaint and the same liable to be dismissed.
c. The relief sought by the Complainant herein is not maintainable inasmuch as the Complainant herein seeks a refund of the amount which had been charged by the Opposite party with reference to the usage of the credit card issued to the Complainant by the Opposite party. It is worth mentioning here that no deficient services could be attributed to the replying Opposite party is alleged by the Complainant. d. Although the credit limits of the complainant had been enhanced by the Opposite party. Still the enhancement of credit limit does not always depend upon the payment track record of the card holder but also on the discretion of the Bank. But the Complainant had abstained from clearing the outstanding dues within the stipulated time frame and accordingly due to the default on the part of the Complainant the total outstanding dues kept on mounting and interests under various heads had been levied by the Opposite Party. e. The Complainant herein had raised a dispute regarding transaction carried out through his credit card bearing No. DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 5243681002432626 on 17.07.2011 for an amount aggregating to Rs. 49.994/18 and as per process, the said card was blocked generating a fresh card 5243681002432620, to which account dues were transferred. It is relevant to state here that upon receipt of dispute from the Complainant a detailed Investigation had been conducted by the concerned department of the Opposite party bank wherein it had been ascertained and confirmed that the subject disputed transaction had been effected through verified VISA gateway which could be only done by the use of secured password which is under the exclusive custody of the card holder and as such the liability of the Complainant had been confirmed.
f. A new credit card bearing NO. 5243681002432626 had been issued to the Complainant the disputed transaction as mentioned heretofore was reported. It is relevant to state here that the Issuance of fresh card involves statutory fees which are levied by the Opposite party bank which is a part of the CMA, further the investigation carried out by the Opposite party revealed that the disputed transaction had been carried out by through verified VISA gateway and as such the complainant was liable towards the same g. The OP had sent several demand notices to the complainant demanding the clearance of outstanding dues from the complainant to recover its outstanding dues if the same are not paid by the cardholder. However, in the instant case, even after receiving the demand notices, the Complainant did not pay the dues of the Opposite party. h. An amount of Rs. 8927.83 had been deducted from the account bearing No: 1347202008329 of the Complainant on account of the Opposite party exercising the set off clause as had been provided in the CMA It is worth mentioning here that the said deduction was made on account of nonpayment of outstanding dues by the Complainant as the latter had stopped making payment after 17.02.2012. Subsequently, the Opposite party, inde letter dated 01.06.2012, had intimated the latter about the factum of credit card balance as on date to be Rs. 73,445.75 and hold on funds on his savings account to the rune of Rs 7218.13/ It was further made clear to the Complainant that the latter was required to clear the outstanding balance on his credit card within one week of DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 receipt of the notice falling which the Opposite party bank would be constrained to use the cross default clause on 16.06.2012. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Opposite party was not under any obligation to take consent of the Complainant before invoking the said clause.
3. On 15/01/2014, the complainant filed a rejoinder rebutting the defense taken by OPs wherein he states that the perusal of complaint alongwith documents annexed clearly show the Unfair Trade Practice, deficiency on part of Opposite Party of not refunding the amount of Rs.8927.83 wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant and also of not writing off the disputed transaction alongwith conversion fee charged thereupon in total amounting to Rs. 51744.00 which trans actions were never done by the complainant and knowingly the OP has never rectified their records. Not only this, knowing fully well the transactions being disputed and matter being subjudice before the Forum, and during pendency of the complaint of have even forwarded the name of complainant in CIBIL defaulter list thus affecting the credit rating of complainant on account of which the complainant has suffered great humiliation recently when complainant went to purchase a Bike and applied for finance, which was rejected because his name appeared in CIBIL Defaulter List causing lot of harassment to the complainant. Hence in overall facts the Opposite Party is liable for deficiency in service and there is every action in favour of complainant and against the Opposite cause of Party and the complaint of complainant is very much maintainable, which be decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP In terms of relief claimed.
4. The complainant filed his evidence by way of an affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint on 27/11/2018.
The complainant has filed his evidence as CW1/PW1 by way of his affidavit and he has relied on following documents : -
a. The I.D. Proof of complainant is annexed as ANNEXURE C-1.
b. The copy of Credit Card is annexed as ANNEXURE C-2. c. Copy of letter dated 19.07.2011 is annexed as ANNEXURE C-3.
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
d. Copy of the statement showing the disputed transaction is annexed as ANNEXURE C-4.
e. Copy of letter dated 04.08.2011 is annexed as ANNEXURE C-5 f. Copy of the letter dated 11.08.2011 is annexed as ANNEXURE C-6.
g. Copy of letter dated 01.06.2012 is annexed as ANNEXURE C-7.
h. The statement generated by Opposite Party of relevant month showing amount deducted from account of Opposite Party Is annexed as ANNEXURE C-8 Copy of email dated 24.06.2012 & 29.08.2012 are annexed as ANNEXURE C-9 & C-10.
i. The copy of the legal notice dated 06.06.2013 alongwith Postal Receipts are annexed as ANNEXURE C-11. j. Copy of duly signed A.D. cards and POD are annexed as ANNEXURE C-12 (Colly).
5. Thereafter, Anil Verma, A/R of OP filed his evidence by way of an affidavit in evidence on behalf of the OPS affirming the facts alleged in the reply on 24/11/2019 and further relied on the following documents:-
a. Copy of the Credit Card application form is annexed herewith as Annexure OP/1 b. Copy of MTC Is annexed herewith as Annexure OP/2 c. Copy of the Card Member Agreement is annexed herewith as Annexure OP/3.
d. Copy of the investigation is annexed herewith as AnnexureAnnexureOP/4) e. Copies of the notices are annexed herewith as Annexure OP/5. (colly) f. The copy of the Lien Notice is annexed herewith as Annexure R-6.
6. Both parties also filed written arguments During the arguments, several opportunities were granted to both parties to explore the possibilities of settlement but all in vain. Finally, oral arguments were heard on 26/08/2023 and finally, the order was reserved.
7. During the oral argument, main arguments as well as Judgement relied upon by OP are as follows:
DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
➤ As per the CMA and in accordance with Section 171 of the Contract Act, it was agreed by the Complainant that the Opposite party bank will have a lien and right of set off on the amount deposited with the Opposite party bank, belonging to the Card holder, to adjust the dues on the Credit Card Account.
➤ In M. Mallika Vs. State Bank of India reported as IV (2006) CPJ 1 (NC) it was held that if any amount is due against a person either as borrower or as guarantor, in the account of another branch, the bank along with all its branches being one legal entity could exercise its general hen over documents/title deads deposited in one branch in respect of loan in another branches for documents are with the bank Further, In Syndicate Bank VsVijaya Kumar, reported as (1992) 2 SCC 330, It was held that By Merchantile system the Bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business and that the general lien is a valuable right of the banker judicially recognized and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a Banker has a general tien over such securities or bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business and has a right to use the proceeds in respect of any balance that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of customer's debit balance. It is further submitted that in Canara Bank Vs CD). Patel, reported as II (2001) CPJ 19 (NC) It was held that "Bank can exercise its power of general lien if there is a default by the customer in discharging its liabilities:
➤ The set off clause which had been invoked by the Opposite party was in absolute consonance and conformity with the CMA to which the Complainant had acquiesced to as soon as the latter had started using the credit card. It is pertinent to state herein that the allegations levelled by the Complainant with reference to arbitrariness on the part of the Opposite party are wholly untenable and unsustainable as the Complainant has raised the allegation in complete disregard to the CMA ➤ The complainant herein is seeking to wriggle out of his liability for making payment of the legitimate dues of the Opposite party on account of usage of the subject credit card DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 has tried to raise untenable and unwarranted allegations against the Opposite party. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. It is relevant to stale here that the name of the chronic defaulters automatically gets updated with CIBIL.
➤ The Complainant's account had been debited to the tune of Rs. 8927.43/ so as to recover the part payment of the credit card and the same was as per the CMA to which the Complainant had acquiesced to by accepting the credit card and extensively making use of the same. It is submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to be compensated as there has not been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or any negligent at on the part of the Opposite party. It is worth mentioning here that as on date the current outstanding balance on the subject credit card has mounted to the tune of Rs. 104839.66/-.
➤ There has been no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party in providing service to the Complainant and, consequently, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation, damages or relief as there exists no proof of alleged deficiency in service against the Opposite party-
8. On the basis of the pleadings, a short question arose as to whether the OP bank was deficient in service.
9. The facts of the case are that the Opposite party had issued a Credit Card bearing No. 0004346774100192850 in the name of the Complainant, in the year 2005. The sald Credit Card was duly accepted and received by the Complainant. Later on, the original Credit Card bearing No. 00043467/4100192850 was upgraded four times and the balance outstanding on old Credit Card was transferred to the upgraded Credit Card on 17.07.2011, at about 8 A.M., while the complainant was in Delhi, the complainant received SMS from the Opposite Party wherein it was mentioned that using his credit card transaction worth Rs. 49,994.18 had been done. Seeing such message the complainant got surprised and immediately contacted the customer care of the Opposite Party, explained his grievance and clarified no transaction having been done by him while requesting for blockage of his card to prevent any further misuse as the same had been misused by someone using his data and further requested for cancellation of transaction. The complainant DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 even filled up the dispute form in this regard and his complaint had been represented as acknowledged vide letter dated 19.07.2011 by officer of the Opposite Party. After a month, statement of transactions was issued to the complainant and after which the complainant was surprised to find out that not only the disputed transaction amount of Rs. 49994.18 INR dated 17.09.2011 but also Rs. 1749.82 INR on 19.07.2011 as conversion charges was claimed as outstanding and payable from the complainant. Upon enquiry the Opposite Party stating that investigation was being made in the matter and simultaneously asked the complainant to make the payment thereof, which was surprising for the complainant as the disputed transaction payment was being asked, which transaction was never done by complainant as the same was took place in London although the complainant was in Delhi at the relevant point of time. Later on instead of rectifying their own mistake, an amount of Rs. 8927.83 wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant and also of not writing off the disputed transaction alongwith conversion fee charged thereupon in total amounting to Rs. 51744.00 which transactions were never done by the complainant and knowingly the OP has never rectified their records. Not only this, knowing fully well the transactions being disputed and matter being sub- judice before the Forum, and during pendency of the complaint of have even forwarded the name of complainant in CIBIL defaulter list thus affecting the credit rating of complainant on account
10. Where OP alleges that the Complainant herein had raised a dispute regarding transaction carried out through his credit card bearing No. 5243681002432626 on 17.07.2011 for an amount aggregating to Rs. 49,994/18 and as per process. the said card was blocked and further generate a fresh card 5243681002432620, to which account dues were transferred. It is relevant to state here that upin receipt of dispute from the Complainant a detailed investigation had been conducted by the concerned department of the Opposite party wherein it had been ascertained and confirmed that the subject disputed transaction has been effected through verified VISA gateway which could be only done by the use of secured password which is under the exclusive custody of the card holder and as such the liability of the Complainant had been confirmed.
DISMISSED PAGE 11 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
Thereafter Opposite party had sent several demand notices to the complainant demanding the clearance of outstanding dues from the complainant. An amount of Rs. 8927.83 had been deducted from the account bearing No: 1347202008329 of the Complainant on account of the Opposite party exercising the set off clause as had been provided in the CMA. Subsequently, the Opposite party, in demand letter dated 01.06.2012, had intimated the latter about the factum of credit card balance as on date to be Rs. 73,445.75 and hold on funds on his savings account to the tune of Rs 7218.13."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 28.08.2023, whereby it held as under:
"11. After going through the entire pleadings and material placed on record and perusal of the record shows that the complainant states that the entire act of the Opposite Party gives ample evidence of improper investigation which was simply an eyewash done by Opposite Party, non redressal of grievance of complainant who has been unjustifiably burdened for liability towards transactions not done by him and whose account has been wrongly debited towards amount never spent/exhausted by him, which collectively and clearly falls within the ambit of Unfair Trade Practice adopted by the Opposite Party as defined u/s 2(1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act and further non rectifying their mistake shows deficiency in service on their part as per section 2 (1) (g) of the Act, despite being pointed out and requested to do so.
12. That instead of solving the problem complained by complainant, the Opposite Party is regularly showing the disputed transaction amount as outstanding and payable and is levying interest also upon same, whereby the amount has now accumulated to Rs. 96,064.63 shown as unpaid and outstanding against the complainant from Opposite Party, such act of the Opposite Party also creates apprehension in mind of complainant that Opposite Party might forward his name in CIBIL Defaulters list which may affect his credit ratio in future.
13. Despite the fact that he was protesting that wrong billing was made OPs never tried to resolve the matter. It may be stated herein that OP bank cannot get over by stating that it DISMISSED PAGE 12 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 was not responsible. Also, if financial fraud takes place due to contributory fraud or negligence of the bank, the customer enjoys zero liability regardless of whether or not the unauthorised transaction complaint is lodged with the bank. Things can be clarified through expert opinion via banking lawyers.
14. Infact as per RBI guidelines vide RB1/2017-18/15 dated 6 July 2017, "The burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions shall lie on the bank.
15. Further, if neither the bank nor the customer is at fault and third party breach led to unauthorised transaction complaint, the following rule applies for refund:
• Within 3 Days - As per RBI guidelines for disputed transaction, if the customer reports bank frauds transactions within 3 days, he/she will have to bear zero liability. Whole amount will be refunded in the account by the concerned bank.
• Within 4-7 Days - Limiting liability of customers. RBI guidelines require customers to bear with the transaction amount or an amount within Rs 5000 uptoRs 25,000, whichever is lower in case the unauthorised transaction complaint is made after 3 days and before 7 days. • After 7 Days - The bank won't refund unauthorised transaction after expiry of 7 days if the policy does not allow it.
16. As per the revised guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the e-transactions could only be carried upon entering six digits password, which is to be supplied to customer on registration to the bank site. It is not explained how password was supplied to the fraudster. In the absence of any explanation how fraudster managed to register to the bank site and obtain password, it cannot be assumed that fraud took place, just because the complainant divulged the credit card details as the complainant was in Delhi, India whereas admittedly illegal withdrawal took place in London Online transactions will not be validated without entering one time password supplied on registration to bank site.
Apparently, the password was delivered to fraudster definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs that facilitated the commitment of fraud. May be it DISMISSED PAGE 13 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 happened with the active connivance of one of the bank employees. OP bank can only refuse to refund an unauthorised payment if it can prove that the complainant authorised the payment it can be prove that the complainant acted fraudulently, deliberately, or with 'gross negligence' failed to protect the details of his card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the payment. The fact could have been verified through a detailed inquiry. The complainant made a number of references to the OPs to conduct a detailed inquiry and even submitted 'Credit Card Dispute Form' and same was acknowledged by OP on 19.7.2011, but the investigation report of the inquiry conducted by the OPs, placed on record to show that they were not involved in the fraud and is mere eyewash. Complainant has clearly set out a case where OPs are found deficient. They have failed to discharge the onus of proving the fact that they were not negligent.
17. RBI guidelines for unauthorised transactions clearly provide limited liability of customers in case of unauthorised transaction complaint. There are some guidelines regarding bank frauds complaints which require customers not to disclose private information like an OTP, CVV, etc. and report unauthorised transaction on credit card or any other online mode without delay. If an unauthorised transaction complaint is received within 24 hours and there is no negligence on part of the customer, 100% refund is provided. However, if it is the customers negligence which resulted in unauthorised transactions, the customer has to bear all loss till the matter is reported to the concerned bank. Once the banker comes to know about bank frauds complaints, any further unauthorised transaction has to be borne by the bank only.
18. It is well established that when a complaint is filed, initially the onus lies upon the complaint, who has sought relief from the Court and failure to prove its case would disentitle him from getting any relief. Once the complainant can prove his case primarily then the burden shift to OP. The onus shifts from stage to stage. The distinction between the burden of proof and onus has been discussed by the Apex Court in para 19 of its judgment in Anil Rishi Case [Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1971]. The said paragraph reads as under:
DISMISSED PAGE 14 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
"There is another aspect of the matter, which should be borne in mind A distinction exists between a burden of proof and an onus of proof.
In terms of the said provision, the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it. The said rule may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto.....
The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of the onus of proof has greater force than the question of which party is to begin. The burden of proof is used in three ways:
(i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later;
(ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and
(iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Section 101 is inflexible in terms of Section 102, the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to relief, the anus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same."
19. As held in A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma (AIR 1964 SC 136) there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. The onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of the onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on the title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence, thereof the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged to amount to proof of the plaintiff s title."
20. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesara Swami & V.P. Temple, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 752 has held as under:-
"In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on the title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of DISMISSED PAGE 15 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 probability to shift the anus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence, thereof the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title."
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand and Bros Vs. Rattan Lal, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 606 has held as under:-
"It is a well-settled principle of law that a person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh ((2006) 5 SCC 558) (SCC p.
561. para 9), it has been held that the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it and the said principle may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto The purpose of referring to the same is that if the plaintiff asserts that the defendant had acknowledged the signature. It is obligatory on his part to substantiate the same. But the question would be what would be the consequence in a situation where the signatures are proven and there is an evasive reply in the written statement and what should be construed as substantiating the assertion made by the plaintiff."
22. In Krishna Mohan Kul v. Pratima Maity [(2004) 9 SCC 468] it has been ruled thus (SCC p. 474. para 12) "12. ... When fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation."
23. In Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (AIR 1964 SC 529] a Constitution Bench of this Court, while dealing with a mode of proof of a will under the Succession Act 1925 observed that where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the anus is on him to prove the same.
24. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rattani reported in (2009) 2 SCC 75 (at page-79), it has been held:
"The question as to whether the burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, sufficient materials have been brought up on record to enable a court to arrive at a definite conclusion, it DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 is idle to contend that the party on whom the burden lies could still be liable to produce sufficient evidence."
25. OP cannot shirk its responsibility and duty towards its customer but OP failed to place on record any document with regard to their defence that the complainant computer/laptop was having Trojan virus. In fact there is dereliction of service on the part of OPs also as they also failed to take any step to safeguard the interest of the complainant in the present case herein. No documentary evidence has been filed by OP in the present case in a sheer act of callousness and irresponsibility towards the complainant OP failed to put forth its defence of the complainant having Trojan virus in his system, which also goes against it and contravenes the guidelines of RBI in this regard which the OP was bound to follow qua its customer. Further to strengthen the case OP relied on the terms of the card member agreement regarding financial charges, late payment fees and penalties but after going through the entire terms and conditions mentioned in the card member agreement, we find that they are not at all relevant in this present case in view of RBI guidelines. Hence, we have no other option except to follows the admitted facts. The burden of proof for customer liability in case of illegal withdrawal was done due to negligence or with connivance with complainant shall lie on the bank, in which OP was failed.
26. Hon'ble NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI in State Bank of India vs Dr. J.C.S. Kataky III (2018) CPJ (193) NC decided on 3 May, 2017 held that;
"once the complaint was made citing specific incidents of unauthorised withdrawal, it was the duty of the Bank to have carried out the necessary verification in the matter, rather than washing their hands off from the whole episode. Evidently, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, vis-a-vis, the consumer/complainant."
27. In Vidyawanti vs. State Bank of India & Ors [RP No. 4868/2012 decided on 18.02.2015] Hon'ble NCDRC held that the allegation was that there had been unauthorised withdrawal from the savings accounts of the complainant as well as some other person. This Commission held that since the money had been wrongly withdrawn by foul play from the DISMISSED PAGE 17 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 account of the complainant as well as some other person, the bank was liable to make good the loss.
28. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Anr. V Leader Valves Valves|| (2020) CPJ 92 (NC) is squarely applies on the facts of the present complaint. The same was decided on 13.32020, the Hon'ble NCDRC while addressing the question of liability of a Bank in case of unauthorized and fraudulent electronic banking transactions, has observed as under
"11. The first fundamental question that arises is whether the Bank is responsible for an unauthorized transfer occasioned by an act of malfeasance on the part of functionaries of the Bank or by an act of malfeasance by any other person (except the Complainant/account-holder). The answer, straightaway, is in the affirmative. If an account is maintained by the Bank, the Bank itself is responsible for its safety and security. Any systemic failure, whether by malfeasance on the part of its functionaries or by any other person (except the consumer/account-holder), is its responsibility, and not of the consumer."
29. This view was reiterated by the Hon'ble NCDRC in their later judgment in the case of HDFC Bank Limited and another vs. Jesna Jose. 2020 SCC Online NCDRC 507, dated 21.12.2020. The RBI, which is the Controlling and Supervisory Agency of all the Banks in India has also vide its circular dated July 6, 2017 patronised the stand of the complainant for refund of his hard earned money as the complainant within three working days of happening of fraudulent transactions reported the matter to the OP. No document has been filed by the OP on record to prove the deficiency on the part of complainant in dealing with the reported transactions.
30. Furthermore, the OP-Bank cannot rely on arbitrary terms and conditions to wriggle out of its liability towards customers and any such terms and conditions must be in conformity with the directions issued by the RBI which is responsible for safekeeping of the Banking Systems and maintaining checks and balances in the same. As per the RBI circular, zero liability will rest with the customer, where the deficiency lies in the banking system. The unauthorized transaction took place on 17.07.2011. Admittedly, the said transactions were observed by the Bank on 17.07.2011 itself.
DISMISSED PAGE 18 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
The Complainant was contacted on same day. Thereafter on 19.07.2011, within three days of receiving information from the Bank, the Complainant notified the Bank that the transactions were unauthorized. In such circumstances, therefore, even if the deficiency was not with the Bank, but elsewhere in the system, the Bank will be held liable for all the unauthorized transactions which were effected on 17.07.2011. The aforesaid RBI circular as well various decisions of National Commission, are both squarely applicable in the present matter.
31. The Complainant had to run from pillar to post and, after repeated requests could get investigation report that too a mere eyewash. Thereafter, the opposite party never attended to the complaints of the Complainant and despite giving repeated reminders to the opposite party for action taken on the case, incompetency was displayed by their executives.
32. We are in agreement with the complainant that he was not involved in the fraudulent transactions taking place from his credit card on 17.07.2011. If the OP had been vigilant enough upon receiving a response from the complainant that he was not involved in those fraudulent transactions. It could have with its strong security management, averted the misuse of complainant s account.
33. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP is held guilty of deficiency in service in not coming to the rescue of complaint to safeguard his interest.
34. We therefore find OP is deficient in service in having failed to address the problem of the complainant. We therefore find merit in the case of the complainant and give him the benefit of the doubt in the absence of rebuttal by OP due to its non-filing of the detailed investigation as to how come question of virus was coming into the picture Based on the pleadings of the parties and taking support from the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission as well as Supreme Court, we are satisfied that there was a deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank in as much as even after specific RBI guidelines OP bank in a very casual manner without following the diligent behaviour failed to refund/reimburse the amount of illegal transaction which causes the detriment of the complainant.
DISMISSED PAGE 19 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
35. Considering the fact that the complainant as long back as has issued notice protesting the illegal withdrawal from his account as well as illegal demand of disputed amount etc. for which no reply was given, there is no reason why it should not be awarded damages he being a innocent consumer his agony could not be described except stating that it would undoubtedly cause nuisance as well as disturbance to his work. He must have been subjected to mental tension, physical insecurity. It is unfortunate that OP being a reputed bank is avoiding RBI guidelines and as we could see that it has no control over its activities. When its own agency is pursuing unethical activities despite the fact that the same was informed to it, it could not check such activities. Obviously, it intended to emulate the private banks which were indulging to such sort of activities for collecting the amounts. This is obviously, due to unhealthy competition between the banks, which in fact , amounts to unfair trade practice.
36. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and accordingly direct the Opposite Party to write off the disputed transaction amount of Rs.49,994.18, conversion fee of Rs. 1749.82 charged thereupon alongwith reversal of accrued Interest charged till date.
37. We further direct the Opposite Party to refund back the amount of Rs.8927.83/- deducted from account of the complainant alongwith accrued interest thereupon and issue a No Dues Certificate to the complainant in this regard.
38. We further direct OP to pay a sum of Rs 30,000/- as compensation and Rs 20,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within thirty days of receipt of copy of this order failing which the said amount shall carry interest @7% from the date of non-compliance of order of this Commission till final realization.
39. Further in view of facts and circumstances, we are of considered opinion that this is case, wherein punitive damages shall be awarded. Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages in certain circumstances. Punitive damages are considered punishment and are typically awarded at the court's discretion when the defendant's behaviour is found to be especially harmful under Section DISMISSED PAGE 20 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 14(1) that empowers the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are as under :-
(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question;
(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;
(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be the charges paid by the complainant;
(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party:
40. In the normal course the punitive damages besides compensation as to the actual loss or injury are awarded to the consumer himself for having suffered immensely but in order to avoid making the consumer unjustly rich and deter the service providers and traders from indulging in highly unfair or restrictive trade practice and grossest deficiencies in service and oppressive or arbitrary acts, heavy damages are awarded and ordered to be deposited in the Fund created for welfare of the poor consumers who have no means to engage legal service to right against the rich and mighty person. Hence we direct OP to deposit a sum of Rs 25,000/- as punitive damages in Consumer Legal Aid fund Maintained by Hon'ble Delhi State Commission."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal contending that the District Commission has erred in considering that disputed transactions had been carried in compliance of the prevailing regulatory guidelines. The Appellant has further submitted that the said transactions had been carried out through the verified VISA gateway by using the valid credentials of the card and the confidential password known only to the card holder, i.e. the Respondent. It is further submitted that the Respondent failed to prove that the laptop/computer of the Respondent was protected by anti- virus. Additionally, the Appellant has submitted that the finding of the District Commission that the 6-digit password was shared with the fraudster by some employee of the Appellant is irrational, and that it was the Respondent who was DISMISSED PAGE 21 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 negligent and compromised his credit card credentials. Further, it is also submitted by the Appellant that the District Commission erred in retrospectively relying upon RBI guidelines of the year 2017 for adjudicating the disputed transactions of 2011. The Counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that the Respondent had failed to pay the outstanding amount due towards the credit card in question, therefore, the Appellant was justified in levying the allegedly additional charges on the Respondent. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the District Commission.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed the Reply to Appeal, whereby denied all the allegations of the Appellant and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order. Pressing the aforesaid contentions and submissions, the Respondent has prayed for setting aside the present Appeal.
5. Written Arguments on behalf of the Appellant are on record, wherein the contents of the Appeal have been reiterated, and the same have been considered. Further, the Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the following judgments in support of its case:
(i) Civil Appeal No. 7289 of 2009 titled The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd., & Anr. vs. R. Chandramohan as decided on 27.03.2023
(ii) First Appeal No. 545 of 2022 titled Sharanjit Kaur vs. State Bank of India as decided on 25.11.2022
(iii) First Appeal No. 265 of 2017 titled HDFC Bank vs. Shek Ariful Haque as decided on 08.09.2022
6. Written Arguments on behalf of Respondent are on record, wherein the contents of the Reply to Appeal have been reiterated, and the same have been considered.
DISMISSED PAGE 22 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
7. We have carefully perused the entire material available on record.
8. The first question before us is whether the impugned order passed by the District Commission suffers from any impugnity.
9. To deal with this issue, we deem it necessary to refer to the Guidelines bearing no. RBI/2017-18/15 of the RBI dated 06.07.2017, which state as under:
"Limited Liability of a Customer
(a) Zero Liability of a Customer
6. A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events:
i. Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).
ii. Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction."
10.From bare perusal of the aforesaid guidelines of the RBI, it is clear that if a card holder reports any unauthorised transactions to the Bank within 3 days, the Bank has to refund the entire amount to the said card holder even if the fault is not in the system of the Bank. However, the aforesaid guidelines were brought into effect in the year 2017, and the disputed transactions took place in the year 2011, therefore, the same cannot have a retrospective application. Hence, it is clear that that the District Commission erred in relying on the said guidelines.
11.The second question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in holding deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant.
DISMISSED PAGE 23 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
12.To deal with this issue, we deem it necessary to refer to Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides as under:
"(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;"
13.The definition of "deficiency" under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 referred to above clarifies that any dereliction with respect to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in performance required by law in pursuance of a contract of service on the part of the service provider amounts to deficiency in service.
14.Reverting to the facts of the present case, we find that that the Respondent immediately filed a complaint with the Appellant on 19.07.2011, i.e. within the first 2 days of the disputed transactions dated 17.07.2011. Further, the said transactions took place from London, and there is no cogent material on record that reflects that the Respondent was in London at the time the disputed amount was deducted from the credit card amount of the Respondent. The Appellant has submitted that it was negligence of the Respondent that his 6-digit password being used by the fraudulent person behind the transactions in question. The Appellant has also failed to rely on any cogent material on record to prove the veracity of its claim.
15.At this juncture, we deem it necessary to refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court in WP No. 28100 of 2022 titled Bhushan Goyal vs. The Banking Ombudsman as decided on 23.09.2025, which provides as under:
"16. The case of the second respondent is premised on the presumption that the petitioner would have unknowingly DISMISSED PAGE 24 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026 shared the OTP with some third party resulting in the unauthorised transaction.
However, there is no material to substantiate the same. The diligent acts of the petitioner clearly show that he had taken all the necessary steps upon coming to know of the unauthorised transactions. In the absence of the Bank failing to cogently establish through reliable materials that the petitioner had not acted diligently or that he had partaken in the unauthorised activity even though unknowingly, the liability to cover the loss squarely falls on the Bank and the Bank cannot make the petitioner to suffer the loss towards the unauthorised electronic transactions based on perceived negligence of the customers. There being no credible material to substantiate the perceived negligence on the part of the petitioner, as per the RBI circular, the Bank is bound to recredit the amount back to the account of the petitioner."
16.From the aforesaid dicta, it is clear that if the Bank fails to prove that the card holder has not acted diligently by relying on cogent material to prove the same, then the liability to cover the loss falls on the Bank itself. Therefore, we find that the District Commission has rightly held that the Appellant is deficient in service.
17.In view of the foregoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission. Consequently, we uphold the contents of the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III: West, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, C-Block, Community Centre, Pankha Road, Janak Puri, New Delhi. Resultantly, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
18.Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
DISMISSED PAGE 25 OF 26 FA/572/2023 HDFC BANK VS. MR. DIKSHIT THUKRAL DOD: 05.05.2026
19.A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on https://e-jagriti.gov.in for perusal of the parties. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the concerned District Commission.
20.File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On: 05.05.2026 LR-DK DISMISSED PAGE 26 OF 26