JYOTI BEZBARUA GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent no. 1, 2 and 7, Mr. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, and Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. None appears on call for the respondent no. 6.

(2.) The petitioner is the holder of account no. 11288865192, which is maintained in Panjabari Branch of the State Bank of India. The petitioner claims that an ATM 'cum- Debit Card was issued to him on 29/3/2004, without e-commerce facility. It is projected that although subsequently e-commerce facility was provided to the petitioner by providing a 16 (sixteen) digit ATM ' cum- Debit Card of the petitioner, but without informing him and without providing the CVV number, which is a security code to the said card. Accordingly, it is projected that without CVV, e-commerce or on-line transaction cannot be done through the said ATM 'cum- Debit Card. It is also projected that the petitioner did not create '3D' password, which is mandatory for making on-line transaction through SBI secured gateway. It is also projected that the petitioner never made any On-line purchases by using his 16 (sixteen) digit ATM 'cum- Debit Card. It is the case of the petitioner that between the period from 8/5/2012 and 17/5/2012, a sum of Rs.4,44,699.17 was swindled out of his account through illegal on-line transactions, however, without any sms alert being received in his registered mobile number. On 17/5/2012, the petitioner lodged a complaint in State Bank of India, Panjabari Branch (respondent no.5), following by lodging of a ejahar before the Addl. Director General of Police (CID), Assam, which was registered as CID PS Case No. 53/2012 under Sec. 420 IPC read with Sec. 66 and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Banking Ombudsman by filing a complaint, which was registered as Guwa.BKG. OMB/494/2012-13. The petitioner projects that his complaint was rejected by the Banking Ombudsman by order dtd. 2/4/2013 under Clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 as the determination would require consideration of documents and oral evidence.

(3.) Therefore, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an enquiry into the matter as to why sms alerts for on-line transaction to the extent of Rs.4,44,699.17 did not reach the petitioner's registered mobile no. 9435017059 and for directing the refund of the sum of Rs.4,44,699.17 along with applicable interest.