IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
Dr. R. Pavithra - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Vepery and Ors. - Respondents
WP.No.6789 of 2021 and WMP.Nos.7343 & 7345 of 2021
Decided On : 28-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Companies Act, 2013 - Banking Regulation Act 1949 - Power of High Court to issue to certain writs - Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, praying to call for records of proceedings on file of 7th respondent, and to quash same as illegal and without jurisdiction, and consequently to direct 3rd and 4th respondents to conduct a free and fair investigation into cyber crime complaint given by petitioner - Held, In fact, it is stated by RBI that such an action has been taken based on certain materials connecting to supervising concerns observed by bank itself - So system audit is required for IT system adopted by the 10th respondent, which is vulnerable to fraudulent activities - Petitioner is one among several users and hence 10th respondent is liable to make out loss suffered by petitioner - As it has been stated already that complaint has been made by customer to her banker, and banker has kept in touch with PayTM, PayTM can not disown its liability - Since RBI has been issuing directions to PayTM, as already cited, it is essential to issue one such direction to 10th respondent to settle loss suffered by petitioner within next two weeks - It is emphasised that 10th respondent had failed to establish liability on part of customer within 90 days as prescribed in guidelines of RBI, and hence 10th respondent cannot state that matter in issue involves a lot of facts to be gone into - Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
(Prayer : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, praying to call for the records of the proceedings in CO/VIG/1365/2020-21 dated 01.03.2021 on the file of the 7th respondent, and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction, and consequently to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to conduct a free and fair investigation into the cyber crime complaint given by the petitioner dated 15.02.2021.)
(Prayer in WMP.No.7343 of 2021 : This Writ Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue an Advocate- Interim Direction directing the respondents 7-9 to immediately credit a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, being the sum unlawfully and authorizedly siphoned off from the account of the petitioner in accordance with the circular of the 6th respondent dated 06.07.2017 and bearing No.RBI/2017-18/15, pending disposal of this Writ petition.)
(Prayer in WMP.No.7345 of 2021: This Writ Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue an Advocate- Interim Direction directing the respondents 4 & 5 to file a status report on the status of the investigation conducted by them in connection with the complaint of the petitioner dated 15.02.2021.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings in CO/VIG/1365/2020- 21 dated 01.03.2021 on the file of the 7th respondent, and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to conduct a free and fair investigation into the cyber crime complaint given by the petitioner dated 15.02.2021.
2. The brief facts of the case is as under:
The petitioner was a post graduate at the SRM Medical College at Trichy. During her post-graduation, the petitioner was serving as a resident doctor to attend the patients affected with COVID-19. She was being paid with a stipend of Rs.25,000/- per month by SRM Medical College, Trichy and the amount would be credited to her bank account with the 8th respondent. Out of the said earnings, she had saved a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- and was planning to utilise the same to meet her final year fees during April- 2021. On 10.02.2021 the petitioner returned to Chennai as she was not well. On 09.02.2021 an attempt was made by some miscreant to hack into her savings account, bearing No.500101011835967 with the 7th respondent bank.
2.1. The said fact was known to her through an alert SMS. She noticed the said message only on 11.02.2021, on which date she received another SMS alert at 14:15 hrs and 22:15 hrs. She immediately sent a message at 22.59 hours to the Bank asking them to block the account. She was under the impression that the account had been blocked pursuant to her request. Once again, on 13.02.2021, she received another SMS informing her that there had been an attempt to break into her savings account. The petitioner sent another message to the bank along with her registered mobile number, requesting the bank to block her account.
2.2. In fact, she had issued messages to block her account only as she had been instructed through the alert messages. Again, on 15.02.2021 at 12.33 p.m., she received an SMS informing her that someone had hacked her account. Within a few minutes, there was an unauthorised debit from her account for a sum of Rs.50,000/- followed by another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- at 12.43 pm and yet another sum of Rs.50,000/- at 12.44 pm and one more Rs.1,00,000/- at 12.45 pm. The miscreants had hacked her account and stolen her money. The petitioner called the 7th respondent bank at 12.43 pm itself and asked them to block her account. However, her money had been illegally siphoned off; no OTP for withdrawal has been received on her mobile phone and she has not shared her bank d
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....
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.
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....
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 customers have zero liability for unauthorized electronic banking transactions due to third-party breaches, emphasizing the bank's duty to notify customers of any changes ....
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....
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.