Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
N. Kotiswar Singh, Soumitra Saikia, JJ.
The State Bank of India Represented by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Justice (Retd.) Mr. Basu Deo Agarwal S/o Late Nowrang Rai Agarwala – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 119 of 2022
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. H. Buragohain, Advocate, Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. D. Deka, Advocate
Point of Law : Internet banking – Fraudulent transaction -Reimbursement of.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Internet banking – Fraudulent transaction -Reimbursement of an amount which was put on hold by respondent Bank was directed to be refunded/reimbursed to petitioner after it was found by Ld. Single Judge that petitioner had duly informed about fraudulent transaction of aforesaid amount to Bank in time which, however, was not prevented by Bank as can be seen from records.
Finding of the court:
If court accept plea of appellant at this stage that amounts were fraudulently debited before fraudulent transaction was brought to notice of the Bank, it would amount to re-writing reply given by Bank in their RTI reply which, in our opinion, would not be permissible –It is not case of appellant/Bank that information was incorrectly given – Stand before us is that it was wrongly misunderstood by petitioner as well as the Ld. Single Judge which stand court are not able to accept in face of specific categorical statement made by Bank in said RTI reply – Court do not find any material to interfere with order of Ld. Single Judge and accordingly.
Results: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in WP(C) No.3474/2020 by which the claim of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) for reimbursement of an amount of Rs.5,99,000/- which was put on hold by the respondent Bank (appellant herein) was directed to be refunded/reimbursed to the petitioner after it was found by the Ld. Single Judge that the petitioner had duly informed about the fraudulent transaction of the aforesaid amount to the Bank in time which, however, was not prevented by the Bank as can be seen from the records.
3. The pleaded facts of the case of the petitioner before the Ld. Single Judge, in brief, were that the petitioner is an account holder of the State Bank of India having a Saving Bank Account bearing No.30086063911 in Six Mile Branch of the Bank. The Bank requested the petitioner to submit his KYC document for updating his records which was duly submitted by the petitioner on 29.03.2019. As there were certain discrepancies as regards the date of birth of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted the new PAN Card with correct date of birth and requested the Bank for making necessary correction.
It was on 01.11.2019, the petitioner received a bulk SMS wherein it was stated that there was certain discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner in his Account which needed correction and was provided with a link for sharing certain information over the said link. The petitioner bonafide believing that the said SMS was in relation to the query made by the Bank, clicked the link provided in the bulk SMS and filled the necessary details. However, no sensitive information like password etc. was shared. Subsequently, at 12.30 pm of the same day on 01.11.2019, the petitioner received a call from a person to provide correct details and also the user ID, which were accordingly shared but no passwords were shared. Subsequently, again at 13:15:24 and 13:18:17 the petitioner received two messages wherein it was mentioned that amounts of Rs.99,000/-and Rs.5,00,000/-were debited from the account of the petitioner by way of internet banking though according to the petitioner, he did not make any such transactions.
4. Being alarmed, the petitioner immediately submitted a complaint before the Branch Manager of the Bank informing about the said fraudulent transactions and to do the needful. The petitioner also filed an F.I.R. on the same day before the Dispur Police Station about the aforesaid incident.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued the matter with the Bank authorities and a complaint was also filed before the Banking Ombudsmen on 27.01.2020 which, however, was not entertained by the Banking Ombudsmen. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, LHO, GS Road seeking certain information relating to the aforesaid transaction.
6. On the basis of such application filed by the petitioner, the following information were communicated to the petitioner by the SBI authorities
| Sl. No. | Information sought | Reply |
| 1 | Copy of the complaint dated 01.11.2019 filed against Fraudulent Transactions on 01.11.2019 submitted by Nikita Agarwal, daughter of the applicant at SBI, Six Mile Branch | Copy of the complaint dated 01.11.2019 filed against Fraudulent Transactions on 01.11.2019 submitted by Nikita Agarwal, daughter in law of the applicant at SBI, Six Mile Branch enclosed. |
| 2. | Date and time of the Blocking the above referred account | An amount of Rs.5,99,000/-(Rupees five lakh ninety nine thousand) was blocked on 01.11.2019. At present there is no provision in Bank |
