Disposed

P. K. Sreenivasan v. Chief Manager

Kerala HC11 Oct 2022WP(C)/2814/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order by the Banking Ombudsman appellate authority which rejected a complaint regarding cyber fraud without a hearing. The court directed the authority to consider the appeal afresh after making the bank a party. No monetary relief was granted, only direction for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P14 order set aside; petition disposed of directing 5th respondent to consider appeal afresh with opportunity of hearing to petitioner and bank within two months.

P. K. Sreenivasan Vs Chief Manager — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2814 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1P. K. SREENIVASAN
AGED 58 YEARS
2ND FLOOR, REVATHY COMPLEX,
CIVIL LANE, WEST FORT
THRISSUR, PIN - 680004
2VASTHUKAM
2ND FLOOR, REVATHY COMPLEX,
CIVIL LANE, WEST FORT, PIN - 680004
BY ADV AJIT JOY

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 CHIEF MANAGER THRISSUR WEST PALACE ROAD BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, SREE KRISHNA BLDG THRISSUR, PIN - 680022

¶10

2 MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO HEAD OFFICE, NO.112, JC ROAD, BANGALURU OTHER DISTRICTS, PIN - 560002

¶11

3 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARAT SANCHAR BHAVAN, HCM LANE, JANPATH, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶12

4 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER POST OFFICE RD, KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

¶13

5 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER CONSUMER EDUCATION AND PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, AMAR BUILDING SIR P.M. ROAD, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001

¶14

6 INSPECTOR AND STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO) CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

¶15

7 MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO, ICICI BANK ICICI BANK TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI, PIN - 400051

¶16

WP(C) NO. 2814 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
T.SANJAY
ANZIL SALIM
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
RAJA KANNAN
SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SC, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.()
SURESH SUKUMAR(K/634/1997)

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY(SR,G.P)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 2814 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2022

¶26

The petitioners are victims of Cyber attack and SIM card fraud. The corporate net banking account of the petitioners was hacked and illegal transactions carried out. As a result, the petitioners suffered a loss of Rs.20,25,000/-. They took up the matter with the 1^st respondent Bank and the Bank having failed to take remedial measures, raised a compliant before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman passed Ext.P13 order, holding that the case requires consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the Ombudsman's office does not have the wherewithal to adjudicate the complaint. Based on the findings, the Ombudsman refused to intervene in the matter. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 14 of the Banking Ombudsmen Scheme, 2006 and the appellate authority has passed Ext.P14 order rejecting the appeal. Hence this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

“1) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to the full benefit of Ext.P7 circular issued by the 5^th respondent Reserve Bank of India.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 2814 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 Canara Bank to make good the illegal loss suffered by the petitioners to thet tune of Rs.20,25,000/- (Twenty Lakh twenty five thousand rupees), within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶31

issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 & 2 to pay interest @ 12% to the petitioners for an amount of Rs.20,25,000/- from the date on which the amount is actually due to the petitioners till the date of payment.”

¶32

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even though petitioner has various contentions regarding the legality of the order passed by the appellate authority, Ext.P14 order is liable to be set aside for the sole reason that it was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶33

3.Having gone through Ext.P14 in detail, I find the challenge to be well founded. Learned Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that, if the appellate authority is being directed to consider the appeal afresh, Bank should also be afforded an opportunity of hearing .

¶34

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, setting aside Ext.P14 and directing the 5^th respondent to consider the appeal

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2814 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

filed by the petitioner against Ext.P13 order afresh. While effecting such consideration, the appellate authority shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the petitioner and the Bank. The order, as directed above, shall be passed within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 2814 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2814/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLED CHEQUE LEAF` `TO SHOW THE ACCOUNT DETAILS OF THE 2ND` `PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.19-12-2020` `FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NUMBER 4 OF 2020` `DT.21.12.2020 FILED BEFORE CYBER CRIME` `POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT DT.11.01.2021 ALONG WITH` `AADHAAR CARD SUBMITTED BY THE FRAUDSTER.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`THE ORIGINAL AADHAR CARD OF THE 1ST` `PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULARS DT.28.02.2013` `AND 02.06.2013 ISSUED BY RBI.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT.06.07.2017` `ISSUED BY RBI.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION` `DT.23.12.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DT. 11.01.2021 OF` `THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 27.01.2021` `OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`THE STATUS OF INVESTIGATION BY THE 6TH` `RESPONDENT DT.05.03.2021.`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT` `DT.30.01.2021 FILED BEFORE THE BANKING` `OMBUDSMAN.`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPLY OF THE` `OMBUDSMAN DT.10.04.2021.`
`EXHIBIT P14`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE` `APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P15`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF` `THIS HON'BLE COURT TONY ENTERPRISES &` `ORS V RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 2019 (4) KLJ` `774.`

P. K. Sreenivasan v. Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. K. Sreenivasan v. Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amal Gireesh Vs Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Limited

Roy Abraham Vs the State of Kerala

Regional Cancer Centre (Rcc) Vs Najeeya S

Kunjamma Joseph Vs State Bank of India SBI

Rohith J Thomas Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

G S Constructions Vs Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited