[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Muhasin Khan vs Reserve Bank Of India on 10 December, 2025
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13285 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED MUHASIN KHAN
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O.AYOOB KHAN C., CHEENIKKAL, NADUVAKKAD, MAMBAD,
MALAPPURAM-676542.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
KUM.K.SALMA JENNATH
SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
SHRI.SHAHNOY SHAJI
SHRI. GOVIND G. NAIR
SRI.SREEJITH.S.NAIR (CHERUKARA)
SHRI.SUNIL.V.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
SPBB, SANGAMAM BUILDINGS, GROUND FLOOR, OPPOSITE
AKG CENTRE, GAS HOUSE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
3 THE CHIEF MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, SPBB, SANGAMAM BUILDINGS,
GROUND FLOOR, OPPOSITE AKG CENTRE, GAS HOUSE
JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
2
4 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
NILAMBUR BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
NO.92, ELECTR BUILDING, NEAR JAGATHY THEATRE, CNG
ROAD, MALAPPURAM-679329.
5 THE BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, NILAMBUR BRANCH, NO.92, ELECTR
BUILDING, NEAR JAGATHY THEATRE, CNG ROAD,
MALAPPURAM-679329.
6 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
CHANDAKKUNNU BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, ZAIN TOWER, OPPOSITE INDUS MOTORS, CNG
ROAD, MINERVAPADI, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM-679329.
7 THE BRANCH MANAGER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHANDAKUNNU BRANCH, ZAINTOWER,
OPPOSITE INDUS MOTORS, CNG ROAD, MINERVAPADI,
NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM-679329.
8 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM-679331.
BY ADVS.
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN
SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)
SRI.JITHESH MENON, SC,
SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a customer of the 4th respondent Bank, who
opened a Savings Bank account in 2015. It is stated that he started using
a Debit Card on 15.04.2018 to withdraw cash from his account, as seen
from Exts. P1(a) and P1(b). The petitioner complains that on 15.02.2019,
when he attempted to withdraw a substantial amount for his expenses,
he came to know that his account was subjected to suspicious activity
and on enquiry with the 6th respondent, it was revealed that the account
had been debited for an amount of Rs.80,000/- on 07.02.20219.
2. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 7 th
respondent, as seen from Ext.P2. He has also made a complaint to the
Nilambur Police on 18.02.2019. His card was thereafter blocked.
Alleging that no reply was received from the Bank, the petitioner
approached the Banking Ombudsman through Ext.P4 complaint.
3. The Banking Ombudsman closed the complaint under Clause
13(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme through Ext.P8 order, stating
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
that the complaint was lodged after 7 working days, the liability would
be on the customer as per Banks Board approved compensation policy.
Since the Bank had forwarded the extract of the compensation policy,
which shows that in such cases the customer's liability will be full, the
Ombudsman found no deficiency attributable to the Bank and
accordingly closed the complaint on 17.06.2019. The said order of the
Ombudsman is challenged through this writ petition filed on 30.06.2021.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank
stating that as per the RBI directions dated 06.07.2016 as regards the
limiting the liability of customers in unauthorised electronic
transactions, based on the 'Model Compensation Policy' issued by the
IBA with an objective to establish a system where the Bank compensates
the customer for deficiency in service on the part of the Bank or any act
of omission or commission directly attributable to the Bank, the State
Bank of India Compensation Policy 2018 (Banking Services) has been
formulated. Paragraph 4 of the said policy deals with recognition of
deficiency and compensation to the customers by the Bank.
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
5. Paragraph 4.6 deals with limiting the liability of the customer
in an unauthorised electronic banking transaction. Overall liability of
the customer in third-party breaches, where the deficiency lies neither
with the Bank nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system,
is mentioned under paragraph 4.6.3 of the policy. The policy is
produced as Annexure R4(a).
6. Though the petitioner complains that the alleged fraudulent
transfer took place on 07.02.2019, it was brought to the notice of the
Bank only on 18.02.2019. It is further stated that if the fraud has been
reported to the Bank within three working days, then the customer will
have zero liability, but if the reporting is made after seven working
days, the full liability will be on the customer. In the instant case, since
the reporting was made after seven working days, the Bank was not
liable to bear any loss or liability.
7. Thereafter, an additional statement was also filed stating that
as soon as the fraudulent transaction is said to have occurred, i.e. on
07.02.2019, the respondent Bank had sent messages via SMS intimating
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
about the suspicious transactions in the number "9526453333" provided
with the Bank. The details of the SMS messages sent to the petitioner
on 07.02.2019 are produced as Annexure R4(b), and it is stated that the
Bank itself had blocked the card ending with "X0327" on 07.02.2019
itself. The Bank, therefore, submits that it is not based on the complaint
preferred by the petitioner that the card was blocked. It is also stated
that the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- on 07.02.2019 at 1:16:21 was
intimated to the customer at 1:16:46 within a span of 25 seconds.
Likewise, the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- at 1:16:29 was intimated at
1:16:54 on 07.02.2019. The card was blocked at 2:57:45 on the same day.
An intimation by SMS alert was given to the mobile number
'9526453333', as seen from Exts.P2 and P4. Thus, it is submitted that the
complaint made beyond seven working days was rightly rejected by the
Banking Ombudsman.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the
card using which the fraudulent activity took place was an unsolicited
card, and the petitioner never used the same. Faced with this
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
contention, the Bank was directed to get instructions as to whether the
petitioner had used the card in question before. It is to be noted that on
21.01.2019, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) was withdrawn
by the petitioner using the very same card and which is reflected in the
account statement and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that
the card was an unsolicited one and he had not used the card, is wrong,
as the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- is reflected in the statement of the
petitioner.
9. Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the
order passed by the Banking Ombudsman. The dismissal of the writ
petition will not prevent the petitioner from pursuing the criminal
complaint, which is stated to have been submitted or pursuing any
other action, in accordance with law.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,
JUDGE
JJ
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13285 OF 2021
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R4 (a) A. true copy of the State Bank of India
Compensation Policy,2018 (Banking
Services) dated Nil
Annexure R4 (b) A. true Copy of transactions dated
07.02.2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE PASSBOOK ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO OF THE DEBT
CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
FOURTH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN
REPRESENTATION DATED 18.2.2019, FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIFTH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ISSUED BY THE NILAMBUR POLICE STATION ON
18.2.2019.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
20.3.2019, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.3.2019 AND BEARING NO.OBO(T)
NO.6070/003322/2018-19.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22.4.2019 BEARING NO.6902/2018-19 SENT BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
17.6.2019 BEARING NO.OBO (T)
NO.8504/2018-19 IN COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST SBI-CTS NO.3753/2018-19.
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CARDS
PERTAINING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE SIXTH
2025:KER:95147
WP(C) NO.13285 OF 2021
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
3.4.2019 SENT BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
COURT EXHIBIT : EXHIBIT X1
