Axis Bank ordered to pay Rs 1.17 lakh to man over unauthorised UPI transaction

5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jun 16, 2026 05:43 PM IST

The commission found that the complainant had acted promptly and without any delay on noticing the unauthorised debit. (AI-generated image)

A Chandigarh man who promptly reported an alleged fraudulent Rs 97,000 UPI debit from his bank account secured relief from a consumer commission after Axis Bank allegedly failed to reverse the amount. Holding the bank guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission ordered the refund of the said amount and awarded Rs 20,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses.

President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and B M Sharma (member) were hearing a complaint filed by one Raja Sachdeva, who alleged that Rs 97,000 was fraudulently debited from his Axis Bank account through a UPI transaction in September 2023.

“In view of the above discussion, the act of OP (Axis Bank) in not complying with the directions of RBI and its failure to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant about unauthorised transactions in his account, clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to succeed,” the May 29 order read.

‘Bank had to reverse amount within 10 working days’

The commission found that the facts of the present case show that the complainant had acted promptly and without any delay on noticing the unauthorised debit.

The consumer body held that the Axis Bank failed to establish that the complainant had knowingly or voluntarily shared the OTP/PIN or other confidential credentials with any unauthorised person.

It was clarified that even mere receipt of SMS does not by itself establish that the complainant authorised the transactions, particularly when he has consistently denied having carried out the same.

It was held that if the complainant himself conducted the transaction, there would have been no occasion for him to instantly report the matter and seek reversal of the amount.

It was pointed out that in cases of alleged unauthorised electronic transactions, the burden lies on the service provider to establish that there was no deficiency in their system.

The consumer body was required to credit the amount involved in the unauthorised electronic transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of notification by the customer.

The commission held that Axis Bank is not complying with the directions of the RBI.

It was further held that the bank’s failure to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant about unauthorised transactions in his account clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

Rs 97,000 debited through UPI

It was placed on record that the complainant was having a savings account with the Axis Bank, which he had also registered with Google Pay and a unified payments interface (UPI) platform used for cashless and online transactions.

It was claimed that on September 9, 2023, the complainant started receiving some unsolicited messages requiring him to authorise payment on the said application, but he did not initiate the same and deleted his bank account from there.

Subsequently, on September 11, 2023, the complainant received a message from Axis Bank for opening a new UPI account with Google Pay, but he did not initiate the request.

However, the same day in the evening, the complainant allegedly received a message from Axis Bank stating that an amount of Rs 97,000 had been debited from his bank account.

Story continues below this ad

The complainant immediately called the customer care number of Axis Bank and reported the fraud, upon which he was assured that the bank would look into the matter and that the amount deducted would be reversed to his account, but the bank would have lied over the same.

However, it was claimed that the bank failed to do so. Alleging that the said acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Axis Bank, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint.

The complaint was represented by advocate Vijyesh Malhotra, who opposed the plea of the Axis Bank.

Complainant shared OTP

Representing the Axis Bank, advocate Gurpreet Singh argued that the mere information given to the bank or the police official does not mean that fraud had actually taken place with the complainant.

Story continues below this ad

It was argued that as per the complainant, fraud took place on September 11, 2023, and thereafter the bank immediately started its investigation and found that the transaction was a secured two factor authentication transaction with OTP/PIN.

It was added that the refund is to be given in those cases where the OTP had not been exchanged by the complainant, but in the present case, the OTP was shared by him with the third party, which shows the complainant had done the said transaction and suffered loss because of his own mistake.

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Expertise

Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.

Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:

Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.

Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More

Tags:

Consumer dispute Redressal Commission