PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,MADHYA PRADESH vs GREEN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MUKESH KAORE ADN ANR,MADHYA PRADESH

1

TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
th
Dated 05 November 2026
Cyber Appeal No. 9 of 2021

Punjab National Bank, Madhya Pradesh … Appellant
Vs.
Green Environmental Technology
Through Its Proprietor Mr Mukesh Kaore & Anr. … Respondents


BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, MEMBER

Appellant : Mr Prasant Kumar, Advocate

Respondent : Mr Saurabh Tiwari, Advocate for R-1



JUDGMENT

1. This Cyber Appeal, under Section 57 of the Information Technology
Act, 2000, has been filed by Punjab National Bank, against Green
Environmental Technology, through its Proprietor Mr Mukesh Kaore,
and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, against the Order, dated
01.09.2021, passed by Learned Adjudicating Officer/ Secretary,

2

Information and Technology, Government of Madhya Pradesh,
Bhopal, in Case No. 23 of 2019, whereby, Learned Adjudicating Officer
has ordered Appellant Bank to pay damages by way of compensation
to the tune of Rs. 16,34,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty-Four
Thousand Only) with compound interest (to be compounded as per
the applicable directions of RBI regarding compounding) payable at
the Bank rate (issued by RBI from time to time) from the date of
th
fraudulent transaction i.e., 10 April, 2019 till date of payment.
Further for mental agony, consultancy and legal expenses including
Court fees, a lump sum of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs (Rupees One Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand Only) be also paid to Applicant, Respondent No. 1 within a
period of 30 days from the date of the Order, failing which additional
simple interest @12% p.a, till date of actual payment, was to be made
and this amount are to be borne equally by Punjab National Bank and
Non-Applicant No. 3 – BSNL.

2. In brief, Punjab National Bank is a body Corporate, constituted under
the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970, and as per Scheme of Amalgamation of Oriental Bank of
Commerce, passed by the Central Government under Section 9 of the

3

Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1980, is the successor of Oriental Bank of Commerce, having its
branches situated at various places, of which Mr Alok Jain, is a
Principal Officer and duly Constituted Attorney of the Appellant Bank.

3. Respondent No. 1, Green Environmental Technology, through its
Proprietor Mr Mukesh Kaore, was maintaining a Current Account No.
09321131000013, with Appellant Bank, at its Arera Colony Branch
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. He also availed online banking facility from
the Appellant Bank, for which a login ID and secured password was
with User. User’s BSNL Cell Phone No. 9425043383 was a registered
Cell Phone Number with the Internet Banking Services linked to above
Current Bank Account of Complainant - Respondent No. 1 firm.

4. On 09.04.2019, this SIM Card became dead. Hence, it was got
enquired from the Respondent No. 2, Telecom Service Provider, who
asked him to come on 10.04.2019. He visited there on 11.04.2019. An
application for re-issuance of SIM card number of the said Number
was moved. This was obtained by User and just after insertion of this
new SIM in the mobile set, he received a message of withdrawal of

4

Rs.3,84,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand Only). When
account was got checked, it was found that Rs. 16,34,000/- (Rupees
Sixteen Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Only) has been withdrawn by
third parties, through net banking. Instantly, Complainant went to his
Bank and informed the mis-utilisation of his Mobile Number through
alleged duplicate SIM between 09.04.2021 to 11.04.2021, his account
was got blocked. A Police complaint, with Local Police Station, and
subsequently, this complaint before Adjudicating Officer, making
above allegation, was got filed. On the notice of said application,
issued by Learned Adjudicating Officer, reply by Appellant Bank as well
as Telecom Service Provider was got filed and after hearing the
arguments, the Impugned Judgment was got passed. This impugned
order is bad in law and lack in judicial approach by Learned
Adjudicating Officer. At no point of time, Appellant Bank was at any
fault in its role with regard to security maintenance, in relation to the
account of Respondent No. 1, nor it has violated any norm of RBI
Guidelines in this regard. No negligence can be attributed to the
Appellant Bank in respect of implementing and maintaining
reasonable security practices and procedures in dealing or handling
any sensitive personal data or information in a computer, thereby

5

causing wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person. This Appellant
Bank has not violated the provisions of Section 43A of Information
Technology Act, 2000 nor was any defiance of Information Technology
(Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal
Data or Information) Rules, 2011. Complainant/ User/ Respondent No.
1, knowingly and intentionally avoided to take proper caution of non-
working of his SIM Card, despite the fact the BSNL Officials called upon
him on 10.04.2019, he wasted the day and went to the BSNL Office on
11.04.2019 and obtained the New SIM Card for the same number. It
was the negligence on the part of Complainant himself. The
transactions alleged to be fraudulently done, were with the same
password and user login, for which the security credentials remained
with the Respondent No. 1, and it was the negligence and collusion of
the Complainant himself. The BSNL had issued a duplicate SIM to a
third party without making proper and due diligence, hence, entire
episode of the case was based on the misuse of Mobile Number by a
third party. The Investigation report of the Police case was not taken
into consideration. It was a case of contributory negligence by the
Appellant Bank, Telecom Service Provider as well as Complainant. But,
the liability has been totally imposed upon the Appellant.

6


5. The Jurisdiction of this Appellate Tribunal is there for hearing this
Appeal, and this Cyber Appeal has been filed well within the period of
limitation. The delay in filing appeal is in accordance with the general
exemption given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.
03/20. The prayer is for allowing this Appeal and setting aside
Impugned Order.

6. Reply by Complainant - Respondent No. 1, was filed over Interim
application moved for stay of execution of the Impugned Order
against which this appeal is, was got filed by Complainant –
Respondent No. 1, wherein, the contention of Appellant was negated
and this Tribunal, vide Order dated 18.01.2022, had directed to make
the deposit of the decretal amount with the Registrar of this Tribunal,
and after its deposit the same was to be disposed of as per final
Judgment of Appeal. In compliance of same, amount was got
deposited by Appellant Bank.

7. A notice to Respondent No. 2 was also issued. Time was given for filing
reply if any, but, no reply was got filed by Respondent No. 2.

7


8. Even after moving application for hearing of this Appeal at an earliest,
the notice was given to both side, and inspite of this notice and
acceptance of MA No. 84/2026, none appeared for BSNL. Neither
reply got filed nor argument was got placed by BSNL. Whereas,
Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank and Respondent No. 1 –
Complainant appeared.

9. Heard argument of Learned Counsels as above and gone through
materials placed on record.

10. From the very perusal of the Complaint, filed under Section 43, 43-A
read with Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the
Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 and
the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and
Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information Rules, 2011)
was got filed by Green Environmental Technology, through its
Proprietor Mr Mukesh Kaore, against Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Arera Colony Branch, E-7, Arera Colony, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh,
Respondent No. 1, Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce of
above Branch, Respondent No. 2 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

8

Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, Respondent No. 3, with a contention that
Mukesh Kaore is a proprietor authorized representative of the
Petitioner, Green Environmental Technology, who operates Account
No. 09321131000013 in the name of Green Environmental Technology
in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Arera Colony, Bhopal,
having Internet Banking facility of same with secured login credentials
such as Login ID, Password, Transaction Password and registered
Mobile Number associated with above Bank Account. On 09.04.2019
to 10.04.2019 some fraudster hacked and accessed Petitioner’s above
Bank Account without permission/ authorisation of Petitioner and
fraudulently got access to operate the Bank Account by unauthorised
fraudulent transfer in the tune of Rs. 16,34,000/- (Rupees Sixteen
Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Only) by adding beneficiaries detailed in
the complaint. This organised fraud was completed through RTGS/
NEFT/ IMPS by using Internet Banking Service for Rs. 16,34,000/-
(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Only) in Petitioners Bank
account in between 09.04.2019 to 10.04.2019, and this illegal transfer
was held under Police Investigation report to be of unauthorised
access and hacking, defined in Section 43 and 66 of IT Act, 2000. Bank
and its Officers failed to protect Login ID, User Password and

9

Transaction Password or fraudster breach the Internet Banking System
of the Respondent No. 1, which was owing to Respondent No. 3, who
had issued duplicate SIM Card on forged documents without verifying
them and the negligence in handling of sensitive personal information.
No one can get full account access only with Login ID, User password
and Transaction password or only one time password. But, it is
necessary to know all the information. Hence, Respondent No. 1 and 2
alongwith Respondent No. 3 had helped and facilitated unauthorised
access in Petitioner’s Bank account to fraudster defined in Section
43(g) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Hence, both are liable
to pay compensation of damage.


11. The reply of BSNL was that it was unaware of the fact, that the
number used to get duplicate SIM, was of link with Bank Account of
the Complainant. Had the fraudster not access to login ID and
transaction password, they would not have taken the money
transacted against the Online Bank Account of Complainant. This
Telecom Service Provider was not at fault with regard to protection of
personal sensitive information and data. After hearing all side, the

10

Impugned Order was got passed by Learned Adjudicating Officer,
wherein the points for determination were –
(i) Whether any fraudulent transactions took place and if
so, what is the value of the transactions?
- Was got decided to be undisputed fact.
(ii) If any fraudulent transaction had taken place, is the
Applicant eligible for compensation under the IT Act?
- Was decided in favour of Complainant.

(iii) If the Applicant is eligible for compensation and other
relief the quantum of relief to be provided?
- These points were decided with above finding of
payment of damages in the tune of Rs. 16,34,000/-
(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Only)
with Interest written Supra by Bank – Appellant
and for Rs. 1.50 Lakhs alongwith given interest in
ratio of half towards mental agony and expenses,
by Appellant Bank as well as Telecom Service
Provider.

11

12. Learned Adjudicating Officer has categorically held that the given
procedures for issuing new SIM as per DoT Guidelines before issuing a
duplicate SIM, the Telecom Service Provider or its authorised licensee
is required to verify the documents submitted by the subscriber, with
the Original Proof of Identity documents already available with them.
In the instant case, this has not been done and Non applicant No. 3
has issued the duplicate SIM without following the laid down
procedure and against what appear to be forged documents. The Non
Applicant No. 3 cannot be exempted from liability as an intermediary
under Section 79 (1) of the IT Act, 2000. Firstly, it failed to observe due
diligence while discharging its duty under the Act. Secondly, when a
Telecom Service Provider is able to establish that it is handling only
the information, data or communication link for any third party, then
subject to provisions in sub-section (2) and (3), it can lawfully claim
exemption from liability. There is a specific finding that Telecom
Service Provider, BSNL has not followed the reasonable security
practices and procedure as well as established guidelines before
issuing a duplicate SIM Card, which has led to the access of sensitive
personal data and information of the Appellant to an unauthorized
person. There is no appeal by Telecom Service Provider. Hence, this

12

finding has not been challenged by Telecom Service Provider. Hence, it
is apparent that requisite due diligence as per laid procedure and
guideline was not taken by Telecom Service Provider BSNL at the time
th
of issuing duplicate SIM on 09 April 2019.

13. It was a specific plea by BSNL, before Learned Adjudicating Officer
that the Telecom Service Provider BSNL had issued SIM Card to a
named person and it was not aware that the same was being used for
a proprietorship concern, in whose name this complaint was got filed,
and this was not placed before Learned Adjudicating Officer nor
before this Appellate forum, as to whether, this SIM was issued to
proprietorship concerned or to individual person, and whether this
Telecom Service Provider was with knowledge of using this SIM Card
by a proprietorship concern. Hence, the loss is being said to be of the
account of a proprietorship concern, because in the Complaint it has
been specifically given in Para 5 that the account holder name is
‘Green Environmental Technology’. Nowhere, it has been written to
be the account of Individual Person to whom SIM was issued. Hence,
Learned Adjudicating Officer was fully with reason to award half of the

13

mental agony and legal expenses over this Telecom Service Provider
and Appellant Bank to pay the whole money siphoned illegally.

14. The fact is undisputed that fund was withdrawn without authorization
of the Applicant. The RBI circular dated 06.07.2017 is of specific
provision with regard to reversal time line for Zero Liability/ Limited
Liability of customer, and in present case Applicant had reported the
matter regarding fraudulent transactions taking place to the Non-
applicants 1/2 on 15.04.2019. As per the above clause the Non-
applicants 1/2 should have credited back the amount to customer’s
account within 10 working days from the date of receipt of such
notice, but, they have failed to comply with the above directions and
have been charging interest on the said amount from the Applicant.
The confidential data regarding Users Name, Users Profile, Users Login
ID, Login Password, Transaction Password, adding of beneficiaries,
cooling period, statutorily directed to be observed for making a
transfer in favour of beneficiary added by user then making
transaction of same is within the domain of Bank providing Internet
Banking facility and any compromise made with the computer of the
Bank by its technical hands, will amount a failure in observing
reasonable practices of protecting sensitive personal data, and for

14

that, guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, will become applicable.
Hence, Learned Adjudicating Officer has discussed the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand vis-à-vis the law given under IT Act,
2000, as well as guidelines and circular of Reserve Bank of India
effective in present case. There is no failure in coming to conclusion
and drawing the Impugned Order. This Appeal merits dismissal.
Dismissed accordingly.

15. The decretal amount has been deposited by JD Appellant Bank with
the Registrar of this Tribunal, which shall be paid to Complainant
Respondent No. 1 alongwith with all its accrued interest there at. So
far as liability of Telecom Service Provider/ BSNL is concerned,
appropriate execution proceeding will be taken before appropriate
forum.


….......………………
(Justice Ram Krishna Gautam)
Member
05.11.2026
/BN/