Archive · 9 Oct 2026
Indian Consumer Wins Partial Refund After Philippines Card Fraud
A man in India said money was taken from his bank card for purchases in the Philippines.
He said he still had his card and was not there.
The bank said he had travelled to the Philippines before and had not blocked the card after the first charge.
A consumer commission decided the bank was responsible for the first charge.
It said the man should have blocked the card to help prevent another charge.
The bank was not held responsible for that second charge.
The bank must return Rs 41,852 with interest and pay Rs 12,500 in compensation and legal costs.
It has 30 days to follow the order.
A man said Rs 41,852 was charged at a Philippines department store while he was in India.
A second debit of Rs 35,686 was made at a Philippines toy store on January 23, 2017.
The East Delhi consumer commission found the bank responsible for the first transaction but not the second.
It ordered the bank to refund Rs 41,852 with 6% annual interest and pay Rs 12,500 in compensation and litigation costs.
The commission said the man should have blocked his card after the first transaction; the bank was given 30 days to comply.
- Who
- An unnamed bank customer and the bank he complained about.
- What
- The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered a partial refund and compensation for unauthorised debit-card transactions.
- When
- The decision was dated September 29; the transactions occurred in December 2016 and on January 23, 2017.
- Where
- The complaint was heard in East Delhi; the disputed purchases were made at stores in the Philippines while the man said he was in India.
- Why
- The commission found the bank deficient over the first transaction, but said the customer’s failure to block his card contributed to the second.
Customer and Commission
Bank
Responsibility for the first transaction
Customer and Commission
The customer said the debit was unauthorised and occurred while he was in India with his card in his possession. The commission held the bank deficient and ordered a refund.
Bank
The bank denied liability and said it had taken necessary steps to secure the account.
Responsibility for the second transaction
Customer and Commission
The customer sought relief for both disputed transactions.
Bank
The bank argued that he had been advised to block the card after the first transaction but did not do so. The commission agreed that this failure contributed to the second transaction and found the bank not liable for it.
Prior travel to the Philippines
Customer and Commission
The commission said frequent travel to the Philippines did not prove that the customer’s card was secure or that the bank could avoid responsibility.
Bank
The bank cited his prior trips and regular ATM-card use there as part of its defence.
- First disputed transaction
- Rs 41,852 at a department store in the Philippines
- Second disputed transaction
- Rs 35,686 at a toy store in the Philippines on January 23, 2017
- Refund ordered
- Rs 41,852
- Interest
- 6% per annum from the date the complaint was filed
- Compensation and litigation costs
- Rs 12,500
- Compliance deadline
- 30 days
- Commission
- East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission