Rs 77,538 spent from a man's ATM card for shopping in Philippines while he had it with him in India, court orders bank to refund only Rs 41,852

A man was in India, but his debit card was allegedly being used in the Philippines. When he sought a refund for two unauthorised transactions, the bank pointed to his frequent visits to the country and argued he should have blocked his card. A Delhi consumer commission has now ordered the bank to pay Rs 41,852 for the first transaction, plus interest and Rs 12,500 in compensation, while rejecting his claim over the second.

The order, announced on September 28, 2026, was passed by President Sukhvir Singh Malhotra and Member Ravi Kumar. The commission assessed the two transactions separately, considering the bank's responsibility to protect the account as well as the customer's duty to take precautions after detecting suspected fraud.

Rs 41,852 debited for shopping in the Philippines

Manoj Shukla received an SMS on December 9, 2016, informing him that Rs 41,852 had been debited from his savings account for a transaction at a departmental store in Philippines.


He denied making the purchase and said he was in India at the time, with his debit card still in his possession. According to his complaint, customer care told him the money would be reversed within 15 days, but the refund never came.

He later approached Mayur Vihar police and submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Delhi, on January 24, 2017.

The dispute did not end there. On January 23, 2017, another Rs 35,686 was debited from his account for shopping at Toys shop in Marquee, Pampanga, Philippines.

Shukla sought a refund of the total Rs 77,538, along with Rs 60,000 in compensation and Rs 40,000 towards litigation costs.

Why the bank had to refund only the first transaction

City Union Bank argued that Shukla frequently travelled to the Philippines and had visited the country in November and December 2016, using his ATM card there. It also pointed out that he reported the first disputed transaction on January 10, 2017, around 33 days after it occurred.

The bank said its staff had advised him to block the card, but he refused because he planned to travel to the Philippines again and wanted to keep his card and account operational. It also relied on the Visa claims process, which had treated the transaction as successful.

The commission, however, found that the bank had not established that Shukla had authorised the December transaction. His passport details supported his claim that he was in India at the relevant time, although his location alone did not establish where the card itself was used.

The commission said the bank needed to prove that the card was in the Philippines, including through the relevant transaction records or other available mechanisms. It had failed to do so. His history of travelling abroad and using his card there was not sufficient evidence that he had made the disputed purchase.

The commission therefore held the bank deficient in service over the Rs 41,852 transaction.

Why the customer could not recover the second Rs 35,686

The commission treated the January transaction differently.

It found that Shukla had not blocked his debit card despite being advised to do so after the first disputed transaction. He also did not specifically deny in his rejoinder that the bank had told him to block the card.

The commission considered blocking the card an important step after suspected misuse. Had Shukla blocked it, the later transaction might have been prevented, it reasoned.

It consequently found negligence on the customer's part in relation to the second debit and did not hold the bank liable for the Rs 35,686 spent at toys shop.

The ruling thus distinguishes between the bank's failure to establish that the first transaction was authorised and the customer's failure to take steps to prevent further use of the card after the dispute arose.

Bank ordered to pay 6% interest and Rs 12,500 compensation

The commission directed City Union Bank to refund Rs 41,852 with interest at 6% per annum from the date the consumer complaint was filed. It also ordered the bank to pay Rs 12,500 as compensation, including litigation charges.

The bank must comply within 30 days of receiving the judgment. If it fails to do so, the entire amount will attract interest at 9% per annum from the date the complaint was filed until actual payment.

The commission did not order a refund of the second Rs 35,686 transaction or grant the full compensation and litigation costs sought by Shukla.