Gauhati High Court
WA/119/2022 on 13 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010045412022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Appeal No. 119/2022
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
SIX MILE BRANCH, SIX MILE,
GS ROAD, GUWAHATI
ASSAM, PIN-781022.
......Appellant
-VERSUS-
JUSTICE (RETD.) MR. BASU DEO AGARWAL
S/O LATE NOWRANG RAI AGARWALA,
RESIDENT OF RADHA NAGAR , VIP ROAD,
SIX MILE, GUWAHATI,
DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
PIN-781022.
......Respondent
- BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
For the Writ Appellant : Mr. H. Buragohain, Advocate.
: Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, Advocate.
: Mr. S.S. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. D. Deka, Advocate.
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 13.05.2022
Page No.# 2/7
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
[N. Kotiswar Singh, Chief Justice (Acting)]
Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr.
D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by
the Ld. Single Judge in WP(C) No.3474/2020 by which the claim of the writ petitioner
(respondent herein) for reimbursement of an amount of Rs.5,99,000/- which was put on hold
by the respondent Bank (appellant herein) was directed to be refunded/reimbursed to the
petitioner after it was found by the Ld. Single Judge that the petitioner had duly informed
about the fraudulent transaction of the aforesaid amount to the Bank in time which, however,
was not prevented by the Bank as can be seen from the records.
3. The pleaded facts of the case of the petitioner before the Ld. Single Judge, in brief,
were that the petitioner is an account holder of the State Bank of India having a Saving Bank
Account bearing No.30086063911 in Six Mile Branch of the Bank. The Bank requested the
petitioner to submit his KYC document for updating his records which was duly submitted by
the petitioner on 29.03.2019. As there were certain discrepancies as regards the date of birth
of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted the new PAN Card with correct date of birth and
requested the Bank for making necessary correction.
It was on 01.11.2019, the petitioner received a bulk SMS wherein it was stated that
there was certain discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner in his Account which
needed correction and was provided with a link for sharing certain information over the said
link. The petitioner bonafide believing that the said SMS was in relation to the query made by
the Bank, clicked the link provided in the bulk SMS and filled the necessary details. However,
no sensitive information like password etc. was shared. Subsequently, at 12.30 pm of the
same day on 01.11.2019, the petitioner received a call from a person to provide correct
details and also the user ID, which were accordingly shared but no passwords were shared.
Subsequently, again at 13:15:24 and 13:18:17 the petitioner received two messages wherein
it was mentioned that amounts of Rs.99,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- were debited from the
Page No.# 3/7
account of the petitioner by way of internet banking though according to the petitioner, he
did not make any such transactions.
4. Being alarmed, the petitioner immediately submitted a complaint before the Branch
Manager of the Bank informing about the said fraudulent transactions and to do the needful.
The petitioner also filed an F.I.R. on the same day before the Dispur Police Station about the
aforesaid incident.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued the matter with the Bank authorities and a
complaint was also filed before the Banking Ombudsmen on 27.01.2020 which, however, was
not entertained by the Banking Ombudsmen. The petitioner thereafter filed an application
under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer, State Bank of
India, LHO, GS Road seeking certain information relating to the aforesaid transaction.
6. On the basis of such application filed by the petitioner, the following information were
communicated to the petitioner by the SBI authorities
Sl. No. Information sought Reply
1 Copy of the complaint dated Copy of the complaint dated
01.11.2019 filed against 01.11.2019 filed against Fraudulent
Fraudulent Transactions on Transactions on 01.11.2019
01.11.2019 submitted by Nikita submitted by Nikita Agarwal,
Agarwal, daughter of the daughter in law of the applicant at
applicant at SBI, Six Mile SBI, Six Mile Branch enclosed.
Branch
2 Date and time of the Blocking An amount of Rs.5,99,000/-
the above referred account (Rupees five lakh ninety nine
thousand) was blocked on
01.11.2019. At present there is no
provision in Bank system for
capturing the time of non financial
transaction. The hold transaction is
a non financial transaction.
Page No.# 4/7
3 List of OPT/SMS sent by Bank The list of OTP/SMS sent by Bank
on 01.11.2019 to the account on 01.11.2019 is enclosed as
holder Annexure-I
4 Details of actions taken by the a) An amount of Rs.5,99,000/-
Bank after the complaint dated (Rupees Five lakh ninety nine
01.11.2019 thoudand only) was put on hold on
01.11.2019 in the SB account
number 30086063911 immediately
after the fraudulent transaction was
brought to the notice of the Bank.
(b)Internet Banking was
deactivated on 01.11.2019
5 Action taken report on theThe complaint against Ticket
complaint Ticket No.5842554632 is under process.
No."5942551632"
.
7. According to the petitioner, from the reply given by the Bank, it is very clear that the
petitioner had duly informed the Bank about the fraudulent transaction and the Bank had
itself put on hold the aforesaid amount and immediately after the fraudulent transaction was
brought to the notice of the Bank.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent herein, submits that the aforesaid reply
would show that the said amount of Rs.5,99,000/- were put on hold on 01.11.2019 in the
SB Account immediately after fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice of
the Bank.
9. In view of above, it can be stated that the Bank authorities acknowledge that the
aforesaid amount was fraudulently debited from the petitioner's Account after the matter was
brought to the notice of the Bank and as such, the petitioner would be liable to the
reimbursed with the aforesaid amount in terms of the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India
Page No.# 5/7
which provides, inter alia, as follows
"7. A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorized transactions in the
following cases:
(i) In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has
shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports
the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the
unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank."
10. Having failed to obtain positive response from the Bank for reimbursement in terms of
aforesaid Clause 7(i) of the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner approached this Court by
filing the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No.3474/2020.
11. The Ld. Single Judge after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the
relevant facts and position as reflected in the reply furnished by the Public Information Officer
of the Bank and also on failure of the Bank authorities to specifically deny the fraudulent
transaction after the same being reported by the Bank in their affidavit-in-opposition allowed
the writ petition with the direction to refund/reimburse the amount of Rs.5,99,000/- to the
Savings Bank Account of the petitioner maintained in the said branch bearing Saving Account
No.30086063911.
12. Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant/Bank has submitted that
unfortunately, the information provided by the Public Information Officer of the Bank was not
correct inasmuch as the fraudulent transaction occurred before the petitioner informed the
Bank authorities. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant/Bank has tried to bring
to the notice of this Court the copy of the Account Statement which is found annexed at
Annexure 5 (Page 53).
13. We have gone through said Bank Statement in respect of the aforesaid account for the
period 1st November, 2019 to 1st November, 2019.
14. Certainly, the Statement indicates debiting of the aforesaid amount of Rs.99,000/- as
well as Rs.5,00,000/- from the aforesaid account of the petitioner on 01.11.2019 with
reference to transactions Nos.108697088528IG AHIVWQG3 TRANSFER TO 4 and
108697093249IG AHIVXFP2 TRANSFER TO 4. However, the said transactions do not indicate
Page No.# 6/7
the timing when the said amounts were debited. It was incumbent upon the Bank authorities
to have come with clear evidence that the aforesaid transactions actually took place before
the petitioner notified the Bank about such unauthorized transaction.
The fact remains that the aforesaid amounts were debited from the Account of the
petitioner on 01.11.2019 which has been also admitted by the Bank. But the Bank could not
show us that these were debited before the account was put on hold.
15. Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant/Bank submits that the aforesaid
reply given by the Bank was wrongly construed to mean that the said amounts were
fraudulently debited after the Bank was notified. He submits that the RTI reply given was
wrongly construed by the petitioner and also accepted by the Ld. Single Judge that the
aforesaid amount was debited after the information was given by the petitioner as the fact
remains that it was earlier withdrawn before the Bank received the complaint from the
petitioner.
16. However, the said stand of the appellant does not appear to be supported by the
language used in the RTI reply. The RTI reply as mentioned is very categorical in informing
the petitioner that the amount of Rs.5,99,000/- was put on hold on 01.11.2019 in SB account
number 30086063911 immediately after the fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice
of the Bank. Thus, the submission advanced before this Court is contrary to the categorical
statement made in the RTI reply.
17. If we accept the plea of the appellant at this stage that the amounts were fraudulently
debited before the fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice of the Bank, it would
amount to re-writing the reply given by the Bank in their RTI reply which, in our opinion,
would not be permissible.
18. It is not the case of the appellant/Bank that the information was incorrectly given. The
stand before us is that it was wrongly misunderstood by the petitioner as well as the Ld.
Single Judge which stand we are not able to accept in the face of the specific categorical
statement made by the Bank in the said RTI reply.
Thus, if the said submission of the Bank is to be taken as correct, in our view, the case
of the petitioner is squarely covered by Clause 7(i) of the Circular of the Reserve Bank of
Page No.# 7/7
India referred to above.
19. Under the circumstances, we do not find any material to interfere with the order of the
Ld. Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Comparing Assistant
