Kerala High Court
S.K.Ummer vs Reserve Bank Of India on 16 October, 2025
2025:KER:78805
WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 13773 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
S.K.UMMER
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KASIM, SANKARANKUZHY
HOUSE,MALAMURI, RAYAMANGALAM, KUNNATHUNADU
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683541.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN
SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATH BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR,
P.P.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683542,REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF MANAGER.
3 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
LAKE GARDEN BRANCH, KOLKATA-700001,REPRESENTED
BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.
*4 INDRA SHOW [DELETED]
84, LAKE GARDENS, KOLKATA-700045. [ADDL.R4
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.04.2019 IN
IA.NO.1/19 IN WP(C) 13773/18.] AND ADDL R4
DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 26-
09-2025 IN IA 01/2025 IN WPC 13773/2018
2025:KER:78805
WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018
2
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI
SRI.AMAL GEORGE, SC, SBI
OTHER PRESENT:
R2 - SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78805
WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2025 The writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 3 rd respondent Bank in initiating steps to release an amount of ₹3,82,000/- to the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, in response to an advertisement published on OLX by one Mini Paul and Satheesh Patter for the sale of their Innova car bearing Registration No.KL-32-F-1899, the petitioner transferred a sum of ₹3,82,000/- as an advance towards the total sale consideration of ₹8,00,000/-. The said amount was remitted as evident from Ext. P1. Thereafter, on realising that it was a fake advertisement, the petitioner preferred Ext. P2 complaint before the Station House Officer, Perumbavoor.
3. In response to the enquiry made by the police, it is revealed that the petitioner had transferred an amount of ₹3,82,000/- through an account maintained by him with the 2nd respondent, Punjab National Bank, Perumbavur. Upon further enquiry, it was found that the advertisement 2025:KER:78805 WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018 4 published on OLX was a fake one. In this regard, the Manager, State Bank of India, Lake Gardens Branch, Kolkata, addressed a communication to the Station House Officer, Perumbavoor, stating that an amount of ₹3,82,000/- had been received from the petitioner in response to the said fake advertisement for the sale of an Innova car, and that the amount was credited to the account of one Indrashaw maintained at the Punjab National Bank, Perumbavoor Branch. Upon further verification, it was confirmed that the OLX advertisement was fraudulent, and the State Bank of India was requested to initiate steps to return the said amount to the petitioner's account maintained with the Punjab National Bank, Perumbavoor Branch.
4. A letter of similar nature was issued by the second respondent to the third respondent in relation to the question of transferring the said amount in the name of the customer, namely, the petitioner herein. The petitioner also preferred Ext.P5 complaint before the Reserve Bank of India. A similar complaint was filed before the Ombudsman for Banking Institutions, as evident from Ext.P7. However, the petitioner's request was declined, directing him to approach 2025:KER:78805 WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018 5 the Banking Ombudsman at Kolkata. Even in Ext.P8 communication, the Reserve Bank of India expressed its inability to intervene in the matter, treating it as sub judice.
5. In this connection, the third respondent Bank has filed a statement admitting that it had received similar complaints from the Palghar (Maharashtra) Police Station regarding recovery of an amount of ₹1,00,000/- from Account No. 20310772657. As on 25.03.2018, the balance amount in the said account was ₹3,82,000/-. Likewise, a sum of ₹9,99,999/- was subjected to a second hold in the same account. However, on 26.03.2018, the 3rd respondent, in compliance with a court order, released an amount of ₹1,00,000/-, leaving a balance of ₹3,82,000/- and ₹9,99,999/-. Upon subsequent verification, the available balance in the said account was only ₹3,39,720.50.
6. It is further stated that the amount claimed by the petitioner could not be released or returned because he had failed to obtain a favourable order directing the return of the money, and the matter was under police investigation. As per the prevailing banking laws, the 3 rd respondent Bank is not in a position to release the amount without the express 2025:KER:78805 WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018 6 consent of the account holder, unless the petitioner obtains a favourable order from the court.
7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the concept of limited liability of a customer as provided under a notification - RBI/2017-18/15 dated 06.07.2017 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, specifically Clause 6(ii), which states as follows:
"In cases of third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction, the customer shall have zero liability."
8. Further, Clause 9 of the said notification, which prescribes the reversal timeline for zero or limited liability of the customer, provides as follows:
"On being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorised electronic transaction to the customer's account within ten working days from the date of such notification by the customer (without waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if any). Banks may also at their discretion decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions even in cases of customer negligence. The credit shall be value dated to be as of the date of the unauthorised transaction."
2025:KER:78805 WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018 7
9. I have heard Sri.Sanjeetha K.A., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Amal George, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri.Santheep Ankarath, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. There is no appearance for the 4th respondent.
10. Upon consideration of the pleadings in the writ petition and the submissions made across the Bar, it appears that this is a clear case of cheating perpetrated by certain individuals through the OLX platform, which facilitates the sale of second-hand products. It is an admitted fact that the third respondent received an amount of ₹3,82,000/-, and it is further admitted that a similar complaint had been received by the 3rd respondent from Maharashtra.
11. In similar circumstances, pursuant to an order issued by a competent court, an amount of ₹1,00,000/- claimed in that case had already been released. Owing to the absence of any valid court order in the present case, the Bank has expressed its inability to release the amount to the petitioner, although it has admitted that a sum of ₹3,82,000/- remains available with it.
2025:KER:78805 WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018 8
12. In the above circumstances, in order to give a quietus to the issue, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to release the sum of ₹3,82,000/- or the available in Account No. 20310772657 to the petitioner's account in the Punjab National Bank, Perumbavur Branch as evident from Ext.P4 complaint to compensate his loss.
With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ JUDGE sss 2025:KER:78805 WP(C) NO.13773 of 2018 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13773/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL DATED 30.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.2016 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.12.2016 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.1.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.7.2017 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.8.2017 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, KERALA.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.9.2017 TO THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, KOLKATA.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8.11.2017 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.