Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Hare Ram Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 16 September, 2022

Author: Sanjeev Narula

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                          $~43
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 13497/2022 & CM APPL. 41033/2022
                                 HARE RAM SINGH                                            ..... Petitioner
                                                    Through:     Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi and
                                                                 Mr.    Ravi    Chandra     Prakash,
                                                                 Advocates.

                                                    versus

                                 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                                                    Through:     None.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                                    ORDER

% 16.09.2022

1. Petitioner, a victim of fraud perpetrated through a 'vishing attack', an aspect confirmed by the findings of the Banking Ombudsman, is aggrieved that the unauthorised withdrawals from his account have not yet been restored by Respondent-bank. In this case, although the transactions prima facie seem to have been triggered at the instance of Petitioner; however, the Banking Ombudsman has directed the Respondent-bank to remit a portion of the disputed amount back to Petitioner, and has granted Petitioner liberty to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction with regards to the remaining amount.

2. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, counsel for the Petitioner, contends that in terms of the circular issued by RBI titled: 'Customer Protection - Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:16.09.2022 19:31:51 Transactions' dated 6th July, 2017, Respondent-bank has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient technological protections available to prevent such fraudulent transactions. Moreover, in this case, Respondent-bank was immediately alerted of the fraudulent transactions by Petitioner and could have easily taken steps to reverse the same. Thus, Petitioner, not being at fault, has the benefit of zero liability in terms of Clause 6 of the said RBI circular.

3. Mr. Tripathi has also placed reliance on a recent judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Tony Enterprises v. Reserve Bank of India1 decided on 11th October, 2019.

4. Issue notice to the Respondents, by all permissible modes, upon filing of process fee, returnable on 12th December, 2022.

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 as 1 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 5366.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:16.09.2022 19:31:51