TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI Dated 19^th March 2026 Cyber Appeal No. 18 of 2018 BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED …Appellant Versus R.S. CHOUHAN & Ors. ...Respondents BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER For Appellant : Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Mr. Arpit Srivastava For Respondents : Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, Ms Aashi Arora, Advocates for Mr. R S Chauhan Mr. Rishabh Singh, Mr. Inder Kumar for R-3 Mr. Vipin Jai, Mr Thoppani Sanjeev Rao, Ms Jainika Mohan for R-4

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal, under Section 57 of Information Technology Act 2000, has been filed by Bharti Airtel Limited, through its authorised representative, Shri Sameer Chugh, against Respondent, Shri R.S Chauhan, Complainant - Respondent No.1, Bank of Baroda - Respondent No. 2, IndusInd Bank – Respondent No. 3, Punjab National Bank – Respondent No.4, against impugned Judgment, dated 08.10.2018, passed by Learned Adjudicating Officer/ Chief Secretary, M.P. Government, Science and Commerce Department, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, in Petition No. 7 of 2013, titled as Shri R.S. Chauhan vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors., with a prayer to set aside and quash the Impugned Judgment, dated 08.10.2018.

2. In brief, the memo of Appeal contends, that vide the Impugned Judgment, Learned Adjudicating Officer has erroneously held the Appellant and Respondent No.2, Bank, liable under Section 43(g) and 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), for an alleged fraudulent transfer on 04.04.2013 for an amount of Rs. 49.99 lakhs from the Bank account held by Complainant – Respondent No.1, in the Respondent No. 2 – Bank, to two (2) third party bank accounts, held in the Bank of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. Wherein, Appellant had been held to be liable to pay, under Section 43(g) and 43A of IT Act, as it had negligently provided a duplicate SIM card to the perpetrators of aforesaid alleged fraudulently transfer, which was ultimately utilized for receiving the one time password and award of a total compensation of Rs. 51,21,727/- to the Respondent No.1 – Complainant, was in the ratio of 2/3^rd i.e., Rs.34,14,515/- upon present Appellant – Telecom Service Provider (TSP) and the balance 1/3^rd i.e., Rs. 17,07,257/- to the Bank of Complainant i.e., Respondent No.2, with an additional imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each, to be payable by the Appellant, and the Respondent No. 2.

3. Under Section 57 of the IT Act, this Appeal has been filed before this Tribunal, under the valid jurisdiction, prescribed in the Section 57(1) of the Act.

4. The date of the Impugned Order was of 08.10.2018 and this appeal is well within the statutory period of limitation.

5. Complainant – Respondent No. 1, Shri R.S Chauhan, claiming himself as a Managing Director of M/s Narbada Forest Industries Pvt. Ltd., and his sons, Sanjay Chauhan and Vijay Chauhan, being the Directors thereof, had filed a claim / Petition No. 7 of 2013, before Learned Adjudicating Officer, with this contention that it had an account, opened in Respondent No. 2 Bank in its Habibganj Branch, Bhopal, bearing Account No. 18600500000035, in order to conduct the business activities of Respondent No.1’s Company, which was being operated by Respondent No.1, as well as his two sons i.e., Managing Director and Directors of the Company. Respondent No. 1 had approached Appellant – Telecom Service Provider on 23.02.2013, for acquisition of six connections, to be utilized for his family members and employees of the Respondent No.1’s Company and six SIM Cards/ Connections in the name of Respondent No. 1’s Company was obtained by him. While issuing those connections, the mandate of the Subscriber Verification Guidelines, issued by Department of Telecommunications, was complied by Appellant and prior to activation of aforesaid six connections, customer acquisition form, duly filled in, with all requisite details, along with other formalities were obtained. One connection, out of the six, i.e., Mobile No. 9