IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Rakesh Totuka, S/o. Lt. Sh. Prakash Chand Totuka - Petitioner
Versus
The Department of Financial Services, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14828 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2025
(A) Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 06.07.2017 - Zero liability of customers for unauthorized transactions - The petitioner reported unauthorized transactions of Rs. 58,93,000/- within the stipulated time, claiming zero liability under the RBI guidelines. The Banking Ombudsman partially allowed the claim, directing the bank to refund Rs. 15,60,000/-, but denied the balance. The court found that the petitioner acted promptly and the bank failed to secure the account, thus ruling in favor of the petitioner. (Paras 6, 21, 30, 33)
(B) Cyber Crime - Increasing incidents of online banking fraud - The judgment discusses the rise of cyber crimes and the necessity for banks to implement robust security measures to protect customers. (Paras 1, 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner experienced unauthorized transactions from his bank account amounting to Rs. 58,93,000/- on 11.02.2022, reported the fraud within two days, and sought full reimbursement from the bank. (Paras 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found the bank liable for the unauthorized transactions due to its failure to prevent them and ruled that the petitioner was entitled to a full refund under the RBI circular. (Paras 31, 33)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was liable for the unauthorized transactions and if the bank acted negligently in securing the account. (Paras 10, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not liable for the unauthorized transactions as he reported them within the stipulated time, and the bank failed to demonstrate due diligence in securing the account. (Paras 21, 30)
Result: The impugned order dated 13.12.2022 is quashed, and the bank is directed to refund Rs. 58,93,000/- to the petitioner with interest. (Paras 33, 34)
ORDER :
For convenience of exposition, this order is divided in the following parts: -
| INDEX | |
| (1) | Prelude |
| (2) | Factual matrix of the case |
| (3) | Submissions on behalf of the petitioner |
| (4) | Submissions on behalf of the respondent |
| (5) | Analysis, Discussions and Judgments referred |
| (6) | Conclusion |
| (6) | Directions |
Prelude:-
1. Over the past few years, there has been a noticeable rise in cyber crimes and frauds globally, with India witnessing thousands of innocent people falling victim to these scams. Many have lost substantial amounts of their hard-earned money to frauds carried out via internet. The surge in digital scam cases underscores a troubling trend, with individuals from all walks of life increasingly being targeted.
In the age of rapid digital evolution, digital scams have emerged as one of the most insidious forms of cyber crimes.
2. As online banking services have grown in popularity, the incidents of online banking fraud have also increased. Among the most widespread cyber crimes are phishing scams targeting bank customers. Cyber criminals steal login credentials to access bank accounts and harvest credit and debit card information for financial gain, leading to significant losses for the victims.
3. Online bank fraud occurs when a cyber criminal steals an individual's or company’s digital banking credentials and gains access to their associated bank accounts and credit cards. Online banking fraud encompasses a range of criminal activities carried out through a bank’s app or website. This includes illegally accessing someone else’s account to manage or transfer funds in other phishy and fraudulent accounts.
4. The highly digitized nature of modern banking provides attackers with numerous opportunities to commit these crimes. Although banks continue to implement advanced measures to secure and protect their digital services and protect customer accounts, the increasing sophistication of these attacks makes it more difficult to detect when fraud is occurring.
Factual matrix of the case:-
5. In the instant case, the petitioner is holding a Dropline OD in account No. 0298675100010645 linked with current account No. 0013102000083988 which is maintained by the respondent No. 5 i.e IDBI Bank with the OD limit of Rs. 1,39,00,000/-. The petitioner states that on 11.02.2022, unauthorized electronic transactions amounting to Rs 58,93,000/- were transferred to unknown third parties between 6:39 PM on 11.02.2022, and 1:30 AM on 12.02.2022. The aforesaid incident was reported by the petitioner to the respondent-bank via E-mail on 13.02.2022 and an FIR No. 10/2022 was also lodged by him on 14.02.2022 with the Special Offences and Cyber Crime Police Station, Jaipur. The petitioner also lodged an application-cum-complaint with the RBI Banking Ombudsman, seeking return of the stolen amount. The said application was partly allowed vide order dated 13.12.2022 whereby the respondent-bank i.e. IDBI has been directed to pay Rs. 15,60,000/- to the petitioner, but the balance amount of total of Rs. 58.93 lakhs has not been granted to the petitioner.
Hence, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2022, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing this writ petition.
6. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
“i. The impugned order dated 13.12.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside to extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner.
ii. That the balance amount of Rs. 43,33,000/- (Rs.58,93,000/- withdrawn fraudulently minus Rs. 15,60,000/- refunded till date) be refunded back along with the interest debited / charged on the amount of Rs. 58,93,000/- from 11.02.2022 till 09.12.2022 and on amount of Rs. 43,33,000/- from 10.12.2022 till it is refunded be credited to the loan account of the Petitioner;
iii. Any other writ or direction which the Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice may be passed in favor of the Petitioner.”
7. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has b
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....
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.
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....
The court established that under the RBI Circular, customers are entitled to zero liability for unauthorized transactions if reported within three working days, and limited liability if reported with....
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.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.