BANK OF BARODA vs MAHAVEER PACKAGING INDORE AND ORS

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
nd
Dated 22 July, 2026
Cyber Appeal No. 5 of 2020

Bank of Baroda … Appellant
Vs.
M/s Mahaveer Packaging, Indore and Ors. … Respondents

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

For Appellant : Mr. Tarun Rathee, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vakul Sharma, Advocate for R-1 & R-2
Mr Samarth Mehrotra for R-3

JUDGMENT

1. The Impugned Judgment, dated 02.01.2020, passed by Learned
Adjudicating Officer/ Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya
Pradesh, has been challenged in this Cyber Appeal, filed under
Section 57 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, by

2

Appellant, Bank of Baroda, Siyaganj Branch, Indore, through its
Branch Manager, the then Respondent No. 1 and 2/ Opposite
Party No. 1 and 2, before Learned Adjudicating Officer in
complaint, against M/s Mahaveer Packaging, Indore, through its
proprietor Shri Sunil Jain, 2. Ravil Lalwani, the complainant,
before Learned Adjudicating Officer and Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited (BSNL) through its General Manager, the Telecom Service
Provider, who was opposite party No. 3, before Learned
Adjudicating Officer in said complaint, with this contention in
memo of appeal, that present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the
complainants, before Learned Adjudicating Officer, and had filed
the complaint, seeking fair enquiry and compensation for the
wrongful loss caused by the unauthorised access, hacking,
negligence, failure to protect, the secure personal information,
and not implementing the due diligence by Respondent No. 3,
BSNL, as well as present Appellant Bank i.e., Bank of Baroda. The
said complaint was adjudicated vide, Impugned Order, and this
appeal is before this Tribunal, within the scheduled period of
limitation and having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction by this
Tribunal.

3



2. The facts in brief, as narrated in memo of appeal, is that, the
Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh,
Department of Science and Technology, in a complaint Case No.
21/2019, filed under Section 43, 43A read with Section 85 of
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000), whereby
Adjudicating Officer has held the Appellant Bank as well as
Telecom Service Provider, i.e., Respondent No. 3, equally
responsible for the fraudulent transactions, causing loss, in the
tune of Rs. 2,92,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand
Only) of complainant, which was because of illegal transfer from
the Bank account in question, vide order dated 02.01.2020, and
had directed the return and payment in the ratio of half of the
amount, alongwith interest 5% compounding payable at Bank
rate, from date of fraudulent transaction, to the complainant,
which has been assailed in this appeal, under Section 57 of IT Act,
2000.

3. Mahaveer Packaging, through Shri Sunil Jain, as a proprietor, was
a customer of Appellant Bank, and it was using Net Banking
facility, through a registered Mobile No. 9425101203, a SIM,

4

issued by a Telecom Service Provider, BSNL, registered as a
mobile number, for use of above Net Banking facilities in
Appellant Bank.


4. In the evening of 09.08.2018, this SIM of mobile phone was got
stopped and when enquiry by complainant at customer care
service of Telecom Service Provider was made, this was
answered by customer care executive, for having a contact at
nearest Office of Respondent No. 3. On 10.08.2018, at about
10.15 AM, after a visit of complainant to Office of BSNL, Office at
Indore, the issuance of duplicate SIM Card for above cell number
from Ujjain Office, was apprised. It was instantly enquired and
complained that this request was never made for issuance of a
duplicate SIM. The fact came to the notice that some
unauthorised person had obtained duplicate SIM, by using a
driving license and signature, which were fake and was not of the
complainant. Complainant instantly made request to Appellant
Bank, that two transactions have been made in the intervening
th th
night 9 and 10 August, 2018, from the Bank account of
Complainant through IMPS, by using Net Banking Service, and
these were the fraudulent transactions, by way of using a forged

5

and fictitious duplicate SIM card, obtained by some fraudsters.
Thereby the loss of Rs. 2,92,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Two
Thousand Only), by way of fraud was complained to Bank, and it
was on the same day of 10.08.2018, between 11.00 A.M to 12.00
Noon. The matter was instantly reported to the Cyber Cell,
Indore, Madhya Pradesh, on the same day. FIR No. 0249/2018,
under Section 66C, 66D of the IT Act, 2000, along with Sections
of Indian Penal Code were got lodged against unknown
miscreants.

5. The complainants i.e., Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed a complaint
on 29.03.2019, before Learned Adjudicating Officer i.e, Principal
Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of
Science and Technology, under Section 43, 43A, and 85 of IT Act,
2000, which was Annexure A-2 to Memo of Appeal. The notices
were got issued, and present Appellant did appear before
Learned Adjudicating Officer, and filed its reply on 19.06.2019.
The compliance of Bank with regard to BSCBI, compliant and
fulfilling all regulatory norms, including the guidelines issued by
RBI, were placed before it. The fraud was said to be result of
issuance of duplicate SIM Card by Telecom Service Provider and

6

the compromise made by complainant with its user name and
Log in password, which was within the knowledge of user itself,
unless compromised with any other, may never be known to
anyone. The Login ID and the password had been compromised,
resulting this illegal syphoning of money. The messages were
sent at the registered mobile number, but owing to issuance of
duplicate SIM, these were manoeuvred by fraudsters. More so,
Bank was never at any fault. Rather, it was the negligence of the
user of Internet Banking Facility, as well as the Telecom Service
Provider. The reply filed before Adjudicating Officer is Annexure
A-3 with memo of Appeal.

6. The Adjudicating Officer, vide impugned judgment, had failed to
appreciate the facts and evidence placed before it, and had
passed impugned order, whereby, had imposed a penalty of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), which were not within the
jurisdiction of Learned Adjudicating Officer. The Root Cause
Analysis and alleged failure to comply with the Rules, 2011, was
the assumption and presumption of Learned Adjudicating
Officer, whereas, Appellant Bank had complied those provisions.

7

Hence, this appeal with above prayer of dismissal of impugned
order of Learned Adjudicating Officer.

7. Reply by Learned Counsel for complainant, is with the repetition
of the complaint, and the finding given by Learned Adjudicating
Officer. The Telecom Service Provider had made its liability by
way of depositing ordered amount, in favour of complainant, i.e.,
no contest by Telecom Service Provider is there.


8. Heard Learned Counsel for Bank of Baroda as well as for
complainant.

9. Gone through impugned order and the proceeding taken by
Learned Adjudicating Officer.

10. Learned Counsel for Bank had rest its argument on two scores.
The first one, is with regard to the compromise made by Net Bank
user, by letting other know the User name and Password, with
whom Net Banking was being operated. It was mandatorily
within the knowledge of user only, Bank is of no concern, and
even after all practices, it couldn’t know the same. The Password
issued through SMS, before completion of the transaction, was

8

used by registered mobile number user, which was someone else
then the real user, because of issuance of duplicate SIM, by
Telecom Service Provider, and for it, liability has been imposed
by Learned Adjudicating Officer, and the same has been
deposited by Telecom Service Provider. The other score is that,
there is compliance of rules and guidelines of Bank of Baroda,
and Bank was of no opportunity to know the address, i.e., IP
address that person who syphoned the money by way of Net
Banking was of Nigerian address. There was no occasion for Bank
to know this.

11. From the very perusal of the impugned judgment of Learned
Adjudicating Officer, it is apparent that the facts, the contention
of complaint, the reply made by Bank, the evidence led before
Learned Adjudicating Officer, and the points to be determined by
Learned Adjudicating Officer, have been clearly and elaborately
given in this judgment. The facts were admitted, the only
question was with regard to compliance of the Rule, 2011 and
the root cause analysis exercise, which was mandated by Reserve
Bank of India, was not initiated by Appellant Bank.

9

12. The guidelines with regard to transfer of beneficiary, added in
one stroke, not exceeding upto Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only), and in one day, not exceeding Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Only), was also flouted, whereas the
guidelines given, by way of Right of Information Act, reply by
Bank of Baroda itself, is of this specific guidelines of above
pecuniary limit of transaction in favour of third party beneficiary
added in above tune.

13. Hence, the reply by RTI, is with specific mention of transaction
upto Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), in favour
of beneficiary added, in one instance and maximum upto Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) in a day, is there. But,
admittedly, this transfer of Rs. 2,92,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Ninety Two Thousand Only) in one day, in two transactions, is
there, which is against the guidelines of Bank of Baroda itself.
More so, the very mandate of initiation of root cause analysis
procedure by the Bank is not there, and Learned Counsel for
Appellant has clearly admitted this fact that it was not there on
record, though he has mentioned at this juncture, while dictating
judgment, that his stand is this, that it was not required in case

10

like present one, but, this Appellate Court is not going to accept
this contention, because, the RBI guideline is there, and it is
mandatory under Rule, 2011. More so, on a single score, of
flouting of the maximum limit, and the transaction in one day, by
way of Net Bank use, in transfer in third party beneficiary favour,
is sufficient for imposing this liability.

14. Hence, apparently, there is no illegality, irregularity in the
Judgment of Learned Adjudicating Officer, for intervention in this
Cyber Appeal by this Appellate forum. Hence, this Appeal merits
to be dismissed with cost.

15. Before parting with, the mentioning of this fact is needed to be
made there that the Branch Manager, who preferred to file this
Appeal, for such a meagre amount, is not of bonafide intention.
Illegal syphoning by use of a duplicate SIM, obtained by
fraudster, by way of withdrawal, through Net Banking exceeding
the limit, specifically admitted and provisioned, in the reply
under RTI Act, by the Bank Officer itself is the conduct of the
concerned Branch Manager of the concerned Bank of Bank of
Baroda, who had chosen to file this appeal, and thereby, making

11

the complainant to suffer further, for getting this meagre amount
suffered by him, by way of this unauthorised conduct. Hence, the
Officer, who is in the capacity of making decision, is also expected
to go through the litigating policy made by Union of India and the
direction given by Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard, that the
Public Offices are to be careful to see, what type of cases are to
filed and what type of cases are required to be contested. Rather,
than the cases to be filed and contested on personal whims of
any Officer, who is at fault and who took the course of filing
appeal, under its leisure intention of contest.

16. Suffice the matter, this Judgment is to be placed before the
Senior-most Officer of Bank of Baroda, by the Learned Counsel of
Bank of Baroda, appearing before this Appellate Forum, as well
as Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant for taking some
decision, considering the agony of public at large and for benefit
of public at large, by taking precaution by such officers.

12

17. With above mentioning, this appeal is being dismissed with cost.


….......………………
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
22.07.2026
/BN/