The West Delhi district consumer commission has ruled that Bank of Baroda failed to demonstrate the customer’s involvement in unauthorised transactions amounting to Rs 38,649. The commission’s decision, delivered on October 21, 2026, mandates the bank to refund the full amount and provide an additional Rs 15,000 as compensation to the affected customer. The commission highlighted the bank’s inability to present any investigation records or identify the recipient of the withdrawn funds.

Details of the Unauthorised Transactions

The case revolves around Arun Kumar, a resident of Shiv Vihar in West Delhi, who maintained an account at the Vikas Puri branch of Bank of Baroda. Kumar reported that on July 15, 2019, his account experienced unauthorised transactions without his consent. He noted that he did not receive any one-time password (OTP) or SMS alerts on his registered mobile number for these transactions.

The transactions in question, processed through Paytm, included amounts of Rs 9,999, Rs 10,690, Rs 11,680, and Rs 6,280, culminating in a total loss of Rs 38,649. Following the discovery of these withdrawals, Kumar filed a police complaint on July 16, 2019. He stated that Paytm had frozen the relevant wallet upon his request, but he was dissatisfied with the assistance provided by both Paytm and the bank in tracing the funds and addressing the issue.

After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter, Kumar escalated the issue to the consumer commission in September 2020, seeking a refund of Rs 38,649 and Rs 1 lakh in compensation for the distress caused.

Responses from Bank of Baroda and Paytm

Bank of Baroda did not attend the commission hearing despite receiving a notice, leading to the proceedings continuing in its absence in October 2023. Paytm, in its defence, contended that it was not liable for the disputed withdrawals, asserting that the funds had been directly debited from Kumar’s bank account. The company stated that the transactions had been authorised through the bank’s system and argued that the bank held ultimate responsibility for the approval of the transactions.

Paytm also claimed to have blocked the relevant wallets and reported the transactions as fraudulent to the beneficiary bank. It maintained that no specific relief had been sought against it and requested the dismissal of the complaint. During the final hearing, Paytm reiterated that it had no significant role in the dispute, which Kumar acknowledged was primarily against the bank.

The commission, comprising president Sonica Mehrotra and members Richa Jindal and Anil Kumar Koushal, reviewed the evidence and submissions presented. It concluded that the bank had failed to provide any investigation records or clarify the accounts into which the funds had been transferred.

Commission’s Conclusion and Final Order

The commission observed that Bank of Baroda did not present any documentary evidence of an inquiry into the withdrawals, nor did it disclose the details of the accounts involved. It noted that Kumar had reported the transactions within three working days of becoming aware of them. The commission referenced the Reserve Bank of India’s circular from July 6, 2017, regarding customer liability in unauthorised electronic banking transactions, which stipulates that the burden of proof lies with the bank.

Ultimately, the commission determined that the bank had not established any liability on Kumar’s part for the transactions and reaffirmed that banks are responsible for the security of their customers’ accounts. The commission ordered Bank of Baroda to refund the Rs 38,649 and pay Rs 15,000 in compensation, mandating compliance within 30 days of receiving the order.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store – https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share