Man cleared Rs 45,000 credit card due in 12 EMIs, yet Kotak Mahindra Bank showed Rs 19,000 unpaid and threatened him; bank ordered to withdraw dues and pay Rs 1.5 lakh

Kotak Mahindra Bank has been ordered to pay Rs 1.5 lakh in compensation after the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found it raised and pursued a demand of Rs 19,788 from a customer who had already repaid his entire credit card balance, and threatened to harm his credit score when he pushed back.

The order, passed on 22 July 2026, also overturned a District Commission ruling that had previously dismissed the complaint on technical grounds, a decision the State Commission found to be a misreading of both the facts and the applicable law.

Also read: Man found Rs 1.3 lakh missing from SBI bank account: Rs 80,000 ATM withdrawal, Rs 50,000 transfer made without his authorisation; consumer commission upholds Rs 1.3 lakh refund


What was the Kotak Mahindra Bank credit card dispute about?

The complainant, a Delhi resident, had purchased a Samsung television using his Kotak Mahindra Bank credit card. The purchase amount of Rs 41,756.35 was to be repaid in 12 interest-free monthly instalments of Rs 3,749.16 each, beginning June 2020.

He had an existing credit balance of Rs 689.23 in the account, which was adjusted against the first instalment alongside a payment of Rs 3,200. He went on to pay all 12 instalments between June 2020 and May 2021, bringing his total repayment to Rs 44,989.92, fully covering the purchase amount.

In August 2021, Kotak Mahindra Bank raised a demand of Rs 19,788.03, showing the amount as outstanding dues on his credit card account. The complainant presented his payment receipts and bank statements to the bank and requested it to withdraw the demand. The bank did not comply.

Did Kotak Mahindra Bank threaten the customer over unpaid credit card dues?

According to the complaint, after the complainant refused to pay the amount he said he did not owe, the bank began sending him threatening messages and emails, warning that his credit card would be blocked and that his CIBIL score would be adversely affected. The bank also made phone calls pressing him to clear the demand.

The complainant sent a legal notice dated 13 September 2021, asking the bank to withdraw what he called an unjustified demand and to stop the threatening communications. Kotak Mahindra Bank responded the same date with its own legal notice demanding payment of Rs 19,788.03. The complainant replied on 23 September 2021. The bank continued its communications pressing for payment.

Why did the District Commission dismiss the case?

The District Commission dismissed the complaint in June 2023, finding that the complainant had not placed the credit card e-statement on record to identify which specific entry in the account was wrong. It held that filing an affidavit alone was insufficient to prove deficiency in service and that the best available evidence had not been produced.

How did the Delhi State Commission rule on Kotak Mahindra Bank?

The Delhi State Commission, presided over by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, found that the District Commission had erred in its appreciation of the facts and evidence.

The State Commission noted that the complainant had placed payment receipts and bank statements on record establishing that all 12 EMIs had been paid. It found that Kotak Mahindra Bank had at no point furnished a statement of account or disclosed the basis on which it had calculated the outstanding demand of Rs 19,788.03, despite repeated requests from the complainant and a formal legal notice.

The commission held that raising an arbitrary demand without disclosing its basis, combined with threatening communications directed at the complainant's credit card and CIBIL score, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

What did the court order Kotak Mahindra Bank to pay?

The State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the District Commission's order, and directed Kotak Mahindra Bank to withdraw the demand of Rs 19,788.03 entirely.

It further ordered the bank to pay Rs 1.5 lakh as compensation covering mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs incurred across both the District Commission and State Commission proceedings.

Check the case judgement here: