Mumbai Consumer Commission Orders Axis Bank To Refund USD 30,570.70 Over Fraudulent Card Transactions

On September 9, 2026, the Mumbai Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that Axis Bank must refund USD 30,570.70 to a former employee, Nitin Uniyal, who was working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia at the time. The commission ordered the bank to pay the amount, plus 6 percent interest from the date of the fraudulent transaction in 2011.

Additionally, Axis Bank must pay Rs 50,000 for compensation and Rs 25,000 for litigation costs. The decision came after a complaint filed by Uniyal on September 9, 2026, by Presiding Member Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan and Member Vijay C Premchandani.

In 2011, Uniyal, who was employed by Pinion Infotech Services Pvt Ltd and stationed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, had an Axis Visa Dollar Card issued through his employer’s forex account. The account held a balance of around USD 20,000 to USD 30,000. Uniyal noticed only USD 103 remained after an unauthorized withdrawal of USD 30,570.70.

Axis Bank denied responsibility, claiming the card could have been cloned after its details were captured through an electronic data capture machine. The bank argued that the fraudulent transactions were not due to any deficiency in their service. However, the commission rejected this defense, noting that the bank had admitted to the possibility of the card being cloned, which is an admission of a fraudulent transaction and the withdrawal of money from the account.

The commission pointed out that banks are required to implement adequate technological and security measures to prevent card cloning, skimming, and unauthorized transactions.

The complainant informed the bank immediately after discovering the fraudulent transaction, but the bank failed to take appropriate action or reverse the amount. The commission held that the bank's failure to act was a deficiency in service, based on RBI directions concerning unauthorized electronic transactions. The bank also argued that Uniyal was not a "consumer" since the account was held by his employer, but the commission disagreed, stating that Uniyal was the beneficiary and user of the card and thus falls within the definition of a consumer.

The commission further ruled that the Maharashtra commission had territorial jurisdiction to hear the complaint since Axis Bank had its corporate office in Mumbai and conducted business there.