Bengaluru Consumer Commission Slams Airport Forex Outlet for Unfair Currency Conversion Practices
In a significant ruling that highlights consumer rights in financial transactions, the III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held an airport money exchange outlet guilty of unfair trade practices. The case involved three residents of Electronics City who were charged differential and exorbitant currency conversion fees after returning from a trip to Bangkok.
The Incident That Sparked the Consumer Complaint
The dispute originated in January 2025 when brothers Vincent K J (52) and Joy K J (54), along with their father Jacob A J (70), returned to Bengaluru from Thailand. Upon arrival at Kempegowda International Airport (KIA), they approached the Ebixcash World Money outlet to convert their remaining Thai Baht into Indian rupees.
The family alleged that staff offered a conversion rate of Rs 2.41 per Baht and processed their currency in three separate transactions totaling approximately Rs 82,860. However, they later discovered that the exchange house had levied conversion charges along with 18% GST that amounted to a staggering Rs 20,697.
Stark Contrast in Conversion Charges
What made the charges particularly shocking was the stark contrast with their pre-trip experience. Before departing for Bangkok, the family had purchased Thai Baht from a city-based exchange house in Basavanagudi, where they paid only a nominal Rs 50 handling fee plus 18% GST.
Feeling cheated by the disproportionate charges at the airport outlet, the family filed a formal consumer complaint on August 29, 2025, alleging unfair trade practices and lack of transparency in fee disclosure.
The Defense and Commission's Scrutiny
Ebixcash World Money defended its position by arguing that:
- Conversion rates, charges, GST, and terms were clearly displayed at the outlet
- The complainants had approached the exchange voluntarily
- Airport operations involve significantly higher costs, including rent running into crores
- Airport exchange rates are typically higher than city rates due to operational constraints
However, the commission bench, comprising President Shivarama K and members Chandrashekar S Noola and Rekha Sayannavar, found these arguments insufficient to justify the differential charging.
The Landmark Ruling and Compensation Order
On January 9, 2026, after reviewing all documents and hearing both parties, the commission delivered a decisive verdict. The bench noted that the family had paid between Rs 6,323 and Rs 7,465 in conversion charges at the airport, while city-based exchange houses would have charged only about Rs 250 for similar transactions.
The commission made several critical observations in its ruling:
- Discriminatory Pricing: "On the same day, for the same foreign currency, different rates were applied without any rational basis. Such differential charging, without transparency or uniformity, is discriminatory and clearly amounts to an unfair trade."
- Lack of Informed Consent: The money exchange outlet failed to disclose the percentage charges being applied, thereby denying customers their right to informed consent.
- Unjustified Disparity: The massive difference between airport and city conversion charges could not be reasonably justified by operational costs alone.
The commission ordered Ebixcash World Money to:
- Refund the differential amount by recalculating conversion charges at 9.84%
- Pay Rs 5,000 in compensation to the complainants
- Cover all litigation costs incurred by the family
Broader Implications for Consumer Protection
This ruling sets an important precedent for financial service providers operating in high-traffic locations like airports. It emphasizes that:
- Transparency in fee disclosure is non-negotiable
- Operational costs cannot justify disproportionately high charges
- Consumers have the right to uniform and reasonable pricing
- Financial service providers must ensure informed consent in all transactions
The case also highlights the effectiveness of consumer redressal mechanisms in addressing grievances against established financial institutions. For travelers and consumers, this ruling serves as a reminder to scrutinize conversion charges carefully and exercise their rights when faced with unfair trade practices.
