A West Delhi consumer commission reportedly directed Bank of Baroda on 21 October 2026 to refund ₹38,649 in disputed 2019 electronic debits and pay ₹15,000 compensation. The report says the bank failed to substantiate customer liability; the full order was not independently obtained.
What the West Delhi commission reportedly decided
A West Delhi district consumer commission reportedly directed Bank of Baroda to refund ₹38,649 and pay ₹15,000 in compensation in a decision dated 21 October 2026. The dispute arose after four electronic debits from a customer’s account in July 2019. The report says the bank failed to show that the customer was responsible or to provide an adequate investigation trail. This is relevant for branch officers, fraud teams and customer-grievance staff responsible for handling and documenting disputed transactions.
The authenticated full commission order was not independently available. Details of the proceedings and relief are attributed to the Times of India report. The original Reserve Bank of India customer-protection circular dated 6 July 2017 was separately examined to distinguish established RBI rules from the report’s description of the case.
Four transactions and the complaint
The complainant said four unauthorised debits occurred on 15 July 2019: ₹9,999, ₹10,690, ₹11,680 and ₹6,280, adding to ₹38,649. He said he had not received the one-time passwords or alerts and reported the matter to police the following day. A consumer complaint was filed in September 2020 after the account dispute remained unresolved. Payments passed through a wallet platform, but the presence of a platform does not by itself establish who perpetrated the transactions.
What the commission considered
According to the reporting, the bank did not participate despite receiving notice and proceedings continued against it ex parte in October 2023. Paytm contested responsibility. The commission reportedly noted that Bank of Baroda had not provided the investigation records or traced the beneficiary accounts, and had not proved that the customer authorised or contributed to the withdrawals. It found deficiency in the bank’s service and did not hold Paytm liable on the presented facts.
The reported order directed a refund of ₹38,649 and ₹15,000 compensation within 30 days from receipt of the order. An order is not evidence that the amounts have already been paid. No later appeal, stay or completed payment could be established from the sources inspected.
What the RBI customer-liability circular actually provides
RBI’s circular of 6 July 2017 addresses unauthorised electronic banking transactions for specified banks, including scheduled commercial banks and regional rural banks. Customer liability depends on whether the failure was attributable to the bank, a third-party breach or the customer’s own negligence, and on when the customer reports it. The circular provides for zero liability in specified circumstances, including bank-contributory deficiency and some third-party breaches reported within three working days of bank communication. Later reporting or credential-sharing can lead to different liability outcomes.
The circular requires transaction alerts, multiple round-the-clock reporting channels, complaint acknowledgements and steps to prevent further debits. The bank bears the burden of proving customer liability. This is not a blanket rule that every disputed debit must be refunded regardless of circumstances.
Practical points for bank staff
- Register the first complaint promptly: Note the time, disputed transaction identifiers, affected channels and complaint reference.
- Preserve investigation evidence: Keep alert-delivery logs, response times, payment trails and permitted beneficiary-reconciliation records.
- Apply liability rules accurately: Examine the actual facts under RBI instructions and the bank’s board-approved policy before attributing fault to the customer.
- Respond to litigation: Legal and branch teams should participate in consumer proceedings and submit authorised records within deadlines.
Dates and unverified status
The disputed transactions were reported in July 2019. The commission decision is dated 21 October 2026 and the news report is dated 29 October 2026. This is an older case recovered during editorial review, not a new fraud incident on 7 November. The complete original order and the subsequent payment status remain unverified.
Sources and References
Please consult the cited sources and check the exact applicability of any legal or employment change. Corrections are welcomed.
Join the discussion