Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. This Court also finds it very pertinent to observe herein that the petitioner Page No.# 5/9 account prior to this incident had never been used for internet banking. Further it was categorically stated that the petitioner never applied for internet banking. It is also very pertinent to take note of that the mobile number which was used by the petitioner for his banking transactions with the SBI was in the name of his daughter one Tulika Deka. For the period from 02.10.2020 to 04.10.2020, as the SIM card used in respect of the mobile number, in question was not working, the daughter of the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the Airtel authorities (respondent No.10) on 04.10.2020. This aspect of the matter is evident from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.10 and 11. The enclosures to the said Affidavit includes the Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form of the said Ms. Tulika Deka and the document used for the purpose of her identity; the application filed by the fraudster impersonating herself to be Ms. Tulika Deka, dated 01.10.2020 seeking sim swapping and the electoral voters' identity card of the said person impersonating the daughter of the petitioner.

6. It is also relevant to take note of that on 04.10.2020 when the daughter of the petitioner went to lodge the complaint, she was asked to submit an Page No.# 6/9 application for SIM swap on 04.10.2020. The daughter of the petitioner submitted her electoral identity card, where the address was categorically mentioned as village- Murara, P.S. Rangiya and the date of birth was mentioned as 04.10.1998. It is very pertinent to mention also that these details which have been inserted in the application enclosed as Annexure-A to the affidavit filed by the Airtel authorities (respondent No.10) had been done by the Airtel authorities (respondent No.10) as they had the control to insert those details.

iii. Before activating of new SIM card, the employee of the Licensee who is activating the new SIM card shall verify that the details of PoI document submitted by the subscriber are matching with the records available with the Licensee and also record a declaration to this effect on the copy of PoI document under his/her name, designation and signature with date."

Page No.# 7/9

8. From the above quoted instructions, it reveals that the person at the point of sale, meaning thereby, the Airtel authorities herein (respondent No.10) had to match the copy of the proof of identity documents submitted by the subscriber with its original and also record a declaration along with his/her name, signature, date, point of sale code and point of sale stamp containing the address to the effect that the person at the point of sale had seen the subscriber and match the copy of proof of identity document with its original. Only after the said exercise, a SIM card may be issued to the subscriber. There is a further additional check, which is required to be carried out and the same has been mentioned in Clause (iii) of the Instruction dated 01.08.2016, which mandates that before activating a new SIM Card, the employee of the licencee, meaning thereby an employee of the Airtel (respondent No.10), who would be activating the new SIM card shall verify that the details of the proof of identity documents submitted by the subscriber are matching with the records available with the licencee and also record a declaration to this effect on the copy of the proof of identity document under his/her name, designation, signature with the date. This Court, however, fails to understand that when the address and the date of birth details mentioned in the identity document which was in the records of the Airtel (respondent No.10) did not match with the details submitted in the application filed on 01.10.2020 and the Identity Document, how could the employee of the Airtel (respondent No.10) could have recorded the satisfaction that he had matched with the record and give a declaration. At the cost of repetition, it reiterated that the document which was submitted for SIM swapping on 01.10.2020 categorically mentioned the village as Hiragata, P.S- Rangiya and the date of birth in the application was 01.01.1985.

Page No.# 8/9

9. This Court has duly taken note of that in the instant case, the petitioner is seeking recovery of the amount which had been fraudulently withdrawn from his account and taking into account the circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated 06.07.2017, this Court, prima facie, is of the opinion that Clause 7(ii) along with Clause 8 of the said circular may be applicable to the facts of the instant case. This Court had also taken note of that the petitioner herein has alleged infraction to the circular of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India dated 01.08.2016 by the respondent Nos.10 and 11. Therefore, for the purpose of a proper and effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, and also taking into account that this SIM swapping has become a menace resulting in various bank frauds, this Court is of the view that the Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, 12th Floor, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001 is required to be made a party respondent in the instant proceedings. Accordingly, the Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, 12th Floor, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110001 is arrayed as the respondent No.12 to the instant writ petition. The petitioner herein is directed to file an amended Memo of parties before the Registry of this Court by 15.03.2024 and on the basis of the said amended Memo of parties along with the instant order, the Registry shall make necessary corrections in the cause-title of the writ petition and also update the same in the CIS.