Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, RAVI NATH TILHARI, JJ.
Awadhesh Singh - Appellant
Versus
Reserve Bank of India and Others - Respondent
Writ -C No. 2045 of 2020
Decided On : 24-03-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 419 and 420 - Cheating and dishonesty - Punishment for cheating by Personation - Finance and Account Officer in Divisional Railway Manager and told petitioner he needed an OTP which will be notified in his mobile number for crediting the interest toward provident fund of petitioner, falling prey to the aforesaid request petitioner informed the OTP which came on his mobile number shortly thereafter - Shockingly an amount was immediately debited from the aforesaid account of the petitioner at 6.31 p.m. followed by 4 more more debit transactions - Debiting total amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the aforesaid account of the petitioner, realizing the same the petitioner immediately contacted the toll free number of bank and requested it to seize/close the account of the petitioner and lodged complaints with regard to the last 5 unauthorized transaction.
Finding of the Court: Respondent Bank in its counter affidavit as aforenoted and the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, it is evident there was negligence on the part of the respondent Bank due to which a sum of Rs. ninety nine thousand and nine hundred in four transactions - illegally withdrawn through electronic Bank transaction, from salary bank account of the petitioner - Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India which is binding upon respondent Bank, the respondent Bank was to ensure immediate response and to freeze Bank Account after petitioner reported unauthorized transaction - Respondent bank had not freezed the aforesaid bank account of the petitioner, as a result were unauthorizedly withdrawn from the bank account of petitioner in terms of aforenoted clauses of the policy of Reserve Bank of India - Perusal of Clause 8 of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 shows it does not cover controversy as involved in present writ petition - Closure of complaint by Banking Ombudsman does not come in way of petitioner to get credit of unauthorized transactions in terms of Clause 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Policy Court find that the complaint of the petitioner was closed merely on the ground that the ground of complaint do not fall within clause 8 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006.
Result: Writ petition is partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been finally heard, without calling for counter affidavit.
2. Heard Shri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, the Punjab National Bank, Subedar Ganj, Prayagraj.
3. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2-Punjab National Bank, Subedar Ganj Allahabad Uttar Pradesh 211012 through its Branch Manager to credit the amount of Rs. 3 lacs. in the account no. 4763000400000990 of Punjab National Bank, Subedar Ganj Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh 211012 of the petitioner along with interest at the bank rate within stipulated time as may be fixed by the Hon'ble Court."
4. In paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated as under:-
5. That the petitioner also on the very next date i.e. 22.02.2019 filed a complaint before the Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Subedar Ganj, Allahabad and informed him about the fraud committed in his bank account and requested him to immediately cease the bank account and initiate refund of the amount of Rs. 1 lakh fraudently debited from his bank account, in addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner also made a complaint before the Station House Officer, Dhumanganj, Prayagraj on 22.02.2019 for lodging an First Information Report, in pursuance to which an First Information Report, was also lodged being case crime no. 0161 of 2019 under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station Dhumanganjj, Allahabad. A true copy of the application dated 22.02.2019 submitted before the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Subedar Ganj, Allahabad and copy of the application date
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....
Banks must prove customer negligence to deny liability for unauthorized transactions; mere downloading of an app does not constitute negligence.
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. ....
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....
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....
Bank is bound to send SMS to customers regarding ATM transactions.
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....
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
