Start with why an unexplained charge is a consumer grievance at all, because banks sometimes argue that a tariff schedule is a take it or leave it matter. It is not.
Two more provisions matter. Section 2(42) names banking in the definition of service, so there is no argument about whether the relationship is covered. And Section 2(11) defines deficiency to include the deliberate withholding of relevant information, which is the natural way to plead a charge buried where nobody was meant to find it.
The ombudsman route
The Reserve Bank Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2026 came into force on 1 July 2026 and governs new complaints. Complaints already pending under the 2021 Scheme continue under that earlier framework, according to RBI's current FAQ. Check which scheme applies before using an older account of the procedure.
Complain to the bank first and keep the dated record. Clause 10 of the 2026 Scheme requires the applicable response period, ordinarily thirty days, with a longer RBI, NPCI or card-network period where specified. It also provides a ninety-day filing window calculated from the expiry of the applicable period or the last communication on the complaint, whichever is later. Check the precise clause and any existing proceeding before filing.
| Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2026 | Consumer commission | |
|---|---|---|
| Cost to you | Nil | A prescribed fee that scales with the value, nominal at the lower end |
| Precondition | Prior bank complaint and the applicable response conditions in Clause 10 | None, though a notice is usually sensible |
| What you can get | The charge reversed, and compensation within the limits the scheme sets | Refund with interest under Section 39, compensation for loss or injury, punitive damages under the proviso, and adequate costs |
| Enforcement | Through the scheme's own machinery | Section 71, enforced as if it were a decree, with Order XXI CPC applicable |
| Time to file | The ninety-day window in Clause 10, calculated from the applicable response-period expiry or last communication, whichever is later | Two years from the cause of action under Section 69 |
How I would actually sequence it
Section 100 preserves additional remedies, but it does not override the Ombudsman Scheme's exclusions for the same matter pending before or settled on the merits by specified forums. Acceptance of an award in full and final settlement can also matter. Check the status of existing proceedings and settlements before starting another route.
Write to the bank first whatever you intend to do afterwards. The ombudsman requires it, and a commission reads a file better when it can see that the bank was given a fair chance and did nothing with it. Then run the calculation in Section 69 in parallel and do not let it lapse. Approaching a nodal officer or an ombudsman does not stop the two years running, and I have seen a perfectly good complaint go stale while the complainant waited politely for an internal escalation to finish. The limitation answer works through how the period is counted.
One thing to be clear about. This answer is about charges. Money taken out of your account by somebody else is a different problem with a different rulebook on liability, and that is dealt with separately in the answer on disputed fraudulent transactions and in our note on recovering money after a UPI or bank fraud.
What makes a charges complaint win
- Statements covering the full period, with every disputed entry marked and totalled
- The document you actually signed: the account opening form, the sanction letter or the most important terms and conditions sheet
- The bank's published schedule of charges for the relevant period, downloaded and dated, since these are revised quietly
- Your written complaint to the branch and to the nodal officer, with the acknowledgment or the delivery proof
- The bank's reply and a dated calculation of the applicable response and filing periods
- Screenshots of any app or netbanking screen where a charge was disclosed only after the debit
The tariff schedule answer, and how to meet it
The standard reply is that the charge is in the bank's published schedule of charges, which the bank is entitled to revise. Two things follow from that, and both help you rather than the bank. A schedule of charges only becomes a term between you and the bank if it was communicated to you, so ask what notice of the revision was given, in what form and on what date, and put the question in writing so that the silence is on the record. And a schedule cannot rescue a charge that was never levied under it at all, which is what you frequently find once the itemised working is produced, because a debit turns out to be for a service you neither took nor were offered. Section 2(6)(iv) covers both situations, since the price charged has to answer either to a price fixed by law, a displayed price, a price list, or the price agreed between the parties, and a charge that answers to none of the four is simply not payable.
Where these complaints go wrong is scale. A hundred rupees a month feels too small to fight, so people wait, and by the time the annoyance is large enough to act on, some of the debits are outside two years. Add up the whole period first. On forum, the consideration paid is the charge itself, which is small, so this is a District Commission matter, and Section 34(2)(d) lets you file where you reside, so a Bengaluru customer does not have to chase a bank to its head office.