Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
State Bank of India – Petitioners
Versus
Pallabh Bhowmick & Ors. – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.30677 of 2024
Decided On : 03-01-2025
The lower court found that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the transactions were unauthorized or fraudulent. It held that the petitioner was negligent in safeguarding their bank details and did not establish that the bank had failed in its duty to prevent such transactions (!) .
ORDER
1. The Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing the Intra-Court appeal filed by the Bank has observed in Para 42 as under:-
2. We are in complete agreement with the observations as contained in Para 42 of the impugned judgment referred to above.
3. All that the High Court has said is that the original petitioner who suffered the loss was not negligent in any manner. All transactions relating to the account of the respondent No.1 – herein maintained with the petitioner - Bank were found to be unauthorized and fraudulent. It is the responsibility of the bank so far as such unauthorized and fraudulent transactions are concerned. The Bank should remain vigilant. The Bank has the best of the technology available today to detect and prevent such unauthorized and fraudulent transaction. Further, clauses 8 and 9 respectively of the RBI’s Circular dated 6-7-2017 make the position further clear.
4. We also take notice of the fact that within 24 hours of the fraudulent transaction, the customer, i.e., the respondent No.1 – herein brought it to the notice of the Bank.
5. We expect the customers, i.e., the account holders also to remain extremely vigilant and see to it that the O.T.Ps. generated are not shared with any third party. In a given situation and in the facts and circumstances of some case, it is the customer also who could be held responsible for being negligent in some way or the other.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we see no good reason to disturb the impugned order passed by the High Court.
7. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
The bank is liable for unauthorized transactions unless customer negligence is established, emphasizing the bank's responsibility to prevent fraud.
Fraudulent transaction of Bank - On completion of investigation if it is established that the fraud took place purely due to the negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the respondent no. ....
Banks must prove customer negligence to deny liability for unauthorized transactions; mere downloading of an app does not constitute negligence.
The court affirmed that customers have zero liability for unauthorized transactions if reported within three working days, as per RBI guidelines, and found the bank liable for failing to secure the a....
Banks must ensure robust security measures to protect customers from cyber fraud, and failure to do so may result in liability for unauthorized transactions.
Writ under Article 226 maintainable against private scheduled banks to enforce RBI guidelines; customer zero liability in unauthorized electronic transactions from third-party breaches like SIM swapp....
Limited Liability of a Customer - Unauthorized aforesaid banking transactions in the bank account of petitioner as per Clause VI of the aforequoted policy of R.B.I., petitioner is entitled to zero li....
The burden of proof in unauthorized electronic banking transactions lies with the bank, but customers can be liable if they were negligent, as shown in deliberate self-initiated transactions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
