Published 28th October 2026
Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru
DC777 CO777 DTD777
The Introduction
One card. Many journeys.
Sometimes, a small balance remains.
When it cannot be refunded or
transferred, who ultimately benefits?
The Small
Trigger _ A Bengaluru Commuter's Dilemma
Prashant is a regular Bengaluru Metro
traveller. For years, his Namma Metro smart card has been his familiar
companion on daily journeys.
He knows the routine: recharge the
card, tap at the gate, board the train and get on with the day.
Now, he hears about the National
Common Mobility Card (NCMC), designed to make travel across participating
transport systems more convenient. With NCMC adoption growing in Bengaluru, he
begins to consider switching.
The question appears straightforward.
Should he continue using his existing
Bengaluru Metro card, or move to NCMC?
The new option sounds promising. One
card could make more of his everyday journeys convenient.
Then Prashant remembers something.
There is still money left on his old
Metro card.
It may not be a large amount. But it
is money he has already paid, and he wants to understand what happens to it
before making the switch.
Can he transfer the balance to his new
card? Can he obtain a refund? Must he continue using the old card until the
balance is exhausted?
A seemingly simple choice now comes
with an unanswered question.
The decision is no longer just about
choosing a card. It is about what happens to the value left behind.
The Big Trigger
— A Report from Bengaluru
This is not merely a hypothetical
concern.
A report published by The Hindu
on 19 October 2026 described Bengaluru Metro commuters who said they could
neither transfer the remaining balance on their traditional Namma Metro smart
cards to NCMC nor obtain a refund while their old cards remained usable. BMRCL
officials reportedly said they would look into the issue.
The report also highlighted a
practical difficulty faced by commuters trying to use up their remaining
balance.
Consider the reported example: a
journey costing around ₹67, a minimum balance requirement of ₹90 for certain
journeys, and a minimum recharge amount of ₹50.
The precise circumstances matter, but
the underlying dilemma is easy to understand. A passenger may have a balance
that is inconvenient to use for the next intended journey. Using it up may
require another recharge, leaving a residual amount on the old card even after
the passenger has decided to move to a different mobility option.
The issue is not necessarily that the
passenger cannot use the card at all. It is that moving on from the card may be
less straightforward than expected.
For Prashant, the question remains:
should choosing a new card mean having to leave some value behind?
The Act I —
A New Card. An Old Balance.
Let us stay with Prashant for a
moment.
He is not trying to find fault with
the Metro system. He is simply weighing the convenience of a new mobility
option against the practicalities of leaving his old card behind.
He may decide to continue using the
existing card until the remaining balance is as low as possible. He may choose
to use NCMC for journeys where it offers additional convenience while retaining
the old card for Metro travel. Or he may look for an authorised way to transfer
or recover the remaining value.
Each option has a practical
implication.
Keeping both cards means managing two
instruments. Continuing with the old card may not suit his preferred travel
pattern. Moving entirely to NCMC leaves him wondering about the value on the
earlier card.
The emotional question is modest, but
real.
“Why should I have to
think so hard about a small amount that I have already paid?”
For one passenger, it may be a few
rupees. For another, the amount may be different. The point is not to
exaggerate the financial impact. It is to recognise that convenience includes
knowing what happens to the money already loaded onto an instrument.
A new payment option may make future
journeys easier. What happens to the previous balance is part of that
transition too.
The Act II —
Two Cards. Different Frameworks.
Prashant's question leads him to a
more fundamental distinction.
His existing Namma Metro smart card is
a closed-loop instrument, designed for use within its specific transit
ecosystem. NCMC, by contrast, is intended to support interoperable payments
across participating transport systems.
The transition is therefore not simply
a matter of moving money from one card to another. The instruments may operate
under different arrangements, with differences in technology, issuance and
customer identification requiring consideration.
These differences may complicate
migration, but their precise role in BMRCL's current position needs
confirmation from the relevant authority.
There is also a wider regulatory
context worth examining.
The Reserve Bank of India's Master
Directions on Prepaid Payment Instruments (PPIs) contain a distinct category
for Mass Transit System Prepaid Payment Instruments (MTS PPIs). Under paragraph
10.2, instruments within this category can have an outstanding balance of up to
₹3,000 and can have perpetual validity. Cash withdrawal, refunds and funds
transfers are not permitted under this category.
These provisions describe the MTS PPI
framework. They should not automatically be applied to the legacy Namma Metro
closed-loop card without establishing its precise regulatory treatment.
That distinction matters. We should
not assume that the rules governing one category directly explain the
restrictions encountered with another.
But the broader question remains
relevant:
When a passenger moves on from a
prepaid instrument, what happens to the value left behind—and what should the
passenger be told about it?
The Act III
— Where Does the Value Go?
Prashant's experience opens the door
to a wider question.
Across a large number of prepaid
transit instruments, what happens to balances that remain unused? How are they
accounted for? What rules govern their treatment over time? Who, if anyone,
ultimately benefits from that value?
These questions should not be answered
by assumption.
An unused balance does not, by itself,
prove that the issuer has recognised it as income or that the passenger has
permanently lost the value. The accounting treatment, applicable contractual
terms and regulatory requirements need to be established.
But when a passenger cannot readily
transfer or recover a residual balance, transparency becomes especially
important.
Passengers should be able to
understand the conditions of the instrument before loading money onto it. They
should also be able to understand their options when their travel habits
change, a new mobility instrument becomes attractive, or a residual balance
becomes difficult to use.
Could the relevant authorities and
transit operators examine whether the treatment of residual balances can be
made clearer to passengers?
Could a fair, transparent and
operationally feasible mechanism be explored, where permitted by the applicable
regulatory framework?
These are questions for examination,
not assumptions about what the rules should permit.
The objective is not to prescribe an
answer in advance. It is to make the issue visible and invite a reasoned
assessment of the options.
The Citizen
Observation
A digital payment instrument should be
convenient to use. But the passenger's experience does not end with the last
successful tap. It also includes what happens to any value left behind.
The transition from a traditional
Metro smart card to a more interoperable mobility card is an opportunity to
consider the complete passenger experience—not only the convenience of the new
instrument, but also the treatment of the old one.
The legacy Namma Metro card and MTS
PPIs must be distinguished correctly. Their respective regulatory and operating
arrangements need to be understood before drawing conclusions about refunds,
transfers or the destination of unused value.
At the same time, the reported
commuter experience raises questions worth examining:
- Are the limitations affecting residual balances
clearly communicated to passengers?
- What options are available to a passenger who no
longer wishes to use the old card?
- How are unused balances accounted for and
ultimately treated under the applicable rules?
- Could a compliant mechanism address balances that
passengers cannot practically use?
This observation does not presume that
all commuters are affected, that every residual balance is irrecoverable, or
that an issuer automatically benefits from unused value.
It asks for clarity, transparency and
a passenger-centred examination of an issue that may otherwise remain invisible
because the amount on any one card is small.
Drops only make an ocean.
The Nothing
More. Nothing Less.
Prashant's dilemma is illustrative,
but the question is worth examining.
A new mobility card can offer new
possibilities. The transition should also account for the value that may remain
on the old one.
The answer may lie in clearer
communication, better transition arrangements, regulatory clarification or
another approach permitted by the applicable framework. The appropriate
solution requires evidence and examination.
The starting point is simple:
understand the passenger's experience, establish the rules that apply, and make
the treatment of unused value transparent.
The Closing
Thought
The balance on one card may be small.
The question it raises is not.
When the journey ends, what happens to
the balance?
One
observation at a time. Nothing More. Nothing Less.
April 11 —
Digital Transactions Day (Proposed)
Digital transactions are increasingly
woven into everyday journeys—from paying for a ride to moving between transport
systems.
Trust in that ecosystem depends not
only on how easily people can pay, but also on how clearly they understand the
rules governing their money.
April 11 is UPI Beta launch Day.
Digital Payments are a sub-set of
Digital Transactions.
April 11 is proposed as Digital
Transactions Day: an invitation to keep the citizen's experience at the centre
of digital progress.
Explore
the proposal: https://movethebarrier.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer
This is
an independent citizen observation prompted by media reports about unused
balances on Namma Metro smart cards during the transition towards NCMC.
Prashant's story is illustrative.
The
reported issues, the precise regulatory treatment of legacy cards, and the
accounting treatment of residual balances have not been independently
established here.
RBI's MTS
PPI provisions are discussed as wider regulatory context, not as rules presumed
to apply directly to the legacy closed-loop card. No fault or improper
financial benefit is attributed to BMRCL, any issuer or other stakeholder.
The
policy questions are exploratory and do not presume that refunds, transfers or
donations are permitted under the applicable framework.
The Joy of Digital Transactions
Nayakanti Prashant
3rd Gen Banker & Citizen Lobbyist – Bengaluru
Advocating Digital Transactions Day (April 11)
https://in.linkedin.com/in/prashantnayakanti
Author’s Blogs
https://prashantnepayments.blogspot.com
https://innovationinbanking.blogspot.com
