38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, April 15, 2024

Kerala HC: Banks Liable For Unauthorised Withdrawals

By LawStreet News Network      02 February, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Kerala HC: Banks Liable For Unauthorised Withdrawals

Kerala High Court observed that a bank cannot be pardoned from the liability for the loss to its customer on account of the unauthorised withdrawals made from his account and the customer have not responded immediately to the SMS alerts given by the bank.

Justice PB Suresh Kumar of Kerala High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the State Bank of India after he observed that, if a customer suffers loss on account of the transactions which was not authorised by him, the bank is liable to the customer for the loss.


The case of PV George was that a total sum of Rs.2, 40,910.36 was withdrawn from his SBI NRE account between 22.03.2012 and 26.03.2012 through the ATMs at different places in Brazil. Therefore he filed a suit against the bank to get the refund of the amount along with interest.

Though the trial court dismissed the suit the First Appellate Court held that, since the dispute amount withdrawals were unauthorized and made by third parties without using the debit card issued to the litigant, through the ATMs in a foreign country, the bank was liable for the loss caused to the litigant.

Justice Suresh Kumar considered the following serious questions of law.

  1. Are not the banks permitting withdrawal of cash from the accounts of their customers making use of ATM cum debit cards liable for the loss caused to the customers in connection with the transactions made without their junction by fraudsters?;
  2. Could a bank be exonerated from the liability for the loss caused to its customer on account of the unauthorised withdrawals made from his account merely on the ground that the customer has not responded promptly to the SMS alerts given by the bank?

The court said that if a customer suffers loss on account of the transactions without any authorisation, the bank is liable to the customer for the loss, and "Where a bank is providing service to its customer, it owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the interests of the customer. Needless to say that a bank owes a duty to its customers to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorised withdrawals from their accounts."

The court also said that it is the duty of the banks providing such services, to create a safe electronic banking environment to encounter all forms of malicious conducts resulting in loss to their customers.

Referring to RBI Circular, the court said that if a customer suffers loss in connection with the transactions made without any authorisation by fraudsters, it has to be assumed that the bank system was failed which should prevent such withdrawals, and the banks are, therefore, liable for the loss caused to their customers.

Dismissing the appeal, the judge said:

"SMS alerts is one of the facility extended by most of the banks to their customers in connection with the savings bank accounts having electronic banking facilities including ATM cum-Debit Card facilities. Such facilities are provided not only to those who specifically request for the same, but also to those who do not ask for such facilities. Could such a facility voluntarily given by banks to their customers determine the rights of parties, is the question. According to me, only if there exists a specific term in the contract between a bank and its customer to the effect that the bank would be exonerated from the liability in connection with the unauthorised transactions if the customer does not respond to the SMS alerts, SMS alerts cannot be the basis for determining the liability of the customer, for, there would be account holders who may not be in the habit of checking SMS alerts at regular intervals and account holders like the plaintiff in the instant case who is working in an offshore oil rig, who may not be able to access their mobile phones for several days having regard to the peculiarity of their avocation."

Therefore in this case as there was no contract between the bank and the customer so bank would be liable to refund the amount, the court added.

Share this article:

User Avatar

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Legal Insiders
Need to safeguard judiciary from unwarranted pressures: 21 ex-judges write letter to CJI

21 ex-judges write to CJI Chandrachud urging protection of judiciary from pressures undermining its integrity and autonomy.

15 April, 2024 12:17 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to ED; declines early date on plea by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal against arrest

SC issues notice to ED, declines early hearing on Delhi CM Kejriwal's plea against arrest in liquor scam.

15 April, 2024 03:08 PM


Trending Judiciary
Location sharing of accused as bail condition: SC directs Google to explain how its PIN location-sharing work

Supreme Court directs Google to explain its PIN location-sharing feature as bail condition for accused, raising privacy concerns. Details sought on technical aspects.

09 April, 2024 02:06 PM
Trending Judiciary
'Can't jail everyone for making allegations against CM,' SC tells Tamil Nadu government

Supreme Court rebukes Tamil Nadu, saying not everyone making allegations against CM can be jailed; restores bail for YouTuber Sattai.

09 April, 2024 02:07 PM
Trending Judiciary
HC dismisses Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest by ED in liquor policy case

Delhi High Court dismisses Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by ED in liquor policy case, ruling it legal. Kejriwal remains in Tihar jail pending Supreme Court relief.

09 April, 2024 05:22 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC allows man to undergo potency test as wife claims marriage not consummated more than 7 years of alliance [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court permits potency test for husband in divorce case where wife alleges marriage unconsummated after 7+ years.

09 April, 2024 05:38 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email