Chandigarh Consumer Commission Dismisses Credit Card Fraud Complaint Against Kotak Mahindra Bank as Premature
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Kotak Mahindra Bank, holding that the dispute relating to alleged unauthorised credit card transactions was premature, as the matter was still under investigation and had not been finally settled by the bank.
The complaint was filed by Joginder Singh, who, upon checking his credit card statement dated 15 January 2025, noticed two transactions of ₹19,520.29 and ₹31,040.25, both dated 23 December 2024, which he alleged were unauthorised. He claimed that he had not received any transaction alerts in respect of the said debits. After contacting customer care, both amounts were initially credited back to his account on the same date, as reflected in subsequent statements. However, according to the complainant, the amount of ₹19,520.29 was thereafter withheld by the bank on the ground that the transaction was under investigation, while the amount of ₹31,040.25 was reflected as “unbilled (outstanding)”, with the complainant being informed that he would be required to pay the same, failing which additional charges would be levied.
Alleging that repeated correspondence and emails exchanged with the bank did not result in a final resolution of the issue, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He sought refund of the disputed amounts along with interest, compensation, and litigation expenses. Despite service of notice, Kotak Mahindra Bank, its Nodal Officer, and the Reserve Bank of India failed to appear before the Commission and were proceeded against ex parte.
After hearing the complainant in person and examining the material on record, the Commission noted that, as per the complainant’s own case, the transaction amount of ₹19,520.29 was still under investigation and had not been finally rejected by the bank. With respect to the amount of ₹31,040.25, the Commission took note of an email dated 11 August 2025 issued by the Nodal Officer of Kotak Mahindra Bank, which stated that reversal of funds depended upon a response from the beneficiary bank and that further assistance would be possible only after receipt of such response.
In view of these facts, the Commission held that the issue concerning both disputed transactions had “not finally been settled” by the opposite parties. It observed that in such circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to record any finding on the merits of the dispute at that stage. The Commission therefore concluded that the consumer complaint was clearly premature. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, liberty was granted to the complainant to challenge the final action taken by the bank in respect of the disputed transactions before the appropriate authority, in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Joginder Singh vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank
Case No: DC/AB1/44/CC/195/2025
Coram: President Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member B.M. Sharma
