The remitter is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of transaction details in electronic fund transfers, as established in the NEFT Guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of May, 2023 The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the sale and installation of power inverters, holds a current account with the first respondent Bank since 2009. In connection with its business, the petitioner used to purchase batteries from the 6^th respondent and effect payment through the National Electronic Fund Transfer System ('NEFT' for short) to the account of the 6^th respondent, maintained at the HDFC Bank, Pahar Ganj Branch, New Delhi. On 23.04.2019 the petitioner received Ext.P2 email containing a proforma invoice for Rs.58,056/- towards the price of batteries purchased. The email also contained details of the 6^th respondent's bank account, to which the amount was to be transferred. Accordingly, the petitioner transferred Rs.58,056/-through NEFT to the account number mentioned in the email. To the petitioner's dismay and shock, the transferred amount was not credited in the 6^th respondent's account. On inquiry, the 1^st respondent informed that in the request for transfer, the petitioner had mentioned the account number of one Mr.Gono Richard Mewasel, instead of the 6^th respondent's. It also came to light that Ext. P2 email had been hacked and the 6^th respondent's account number replaced with the account number of Gono Richard Mewasel. On coming to know about the foul play, petitioner demanded the 1^st respondent to take immediate steps for reversing the wrong credit and reimbursing the amount. By Ext. P6 letter, the 1^st respondent informed the petitioner that the amount of Rs.58,056/- was transfer credited to the account number mentioned in the petitioner's application. The petitioner's repeated requests for reversing the wrong credit having failed to evoke any positive response, he approached the Banking Ombudsman. Thereupon, the 1^st respondent filed its objection admitting that the mistake had occurred since the email id of the 6^th respondent was hacked and a false mail request sent to the petitioner. It was also made clear that, based on the petitioner's complaint, the 1^st respondent had lodged a charge back request with the 2^nd respondent Bank. Later, by Ext. P11 communication, it was informed that the petitioner's complaint had been rejected by the Banking Ombudsman, finding no deficiency in the service rendered by the 1^st respondent. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the seventh respondent calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P11 order and quashing it.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 1, 2 and 8 to refund the loss of Rs.58,056/- sustained by the petitioner along with reasonable interest.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 4 and 5 to take action on Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 complaints respectively preferred by the petitioner to get refund of the loss of Rs.58,056/- sustained by the petitioner.

(iv) Issue such other further relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.

2. Heard Adv. K.N. Sasidharan Nair for the petitioner, Adv.Jacob P Alex for the 1^st respondent, Adv. Jawahar Jose for the 2^nd respondent and Adv. Millu Dandapani for the Reserve Bank of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext. P1 NEFT Guidelines to contend that the sending Bank is under an obligation to verify and ensure correctness of all details submitted by the sender/originator before executing the payment instruction. In the instant case, the 1^st respondent's failure to cross check the account n