Landmark Judgments On Upi Scams
1. State Bank of India v. Ravi Kumar (2019) – UPI Fraud via Mobile App
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: The victim’s SBI UPI account was hacked, and funds were transferred to multiple unknown accounts. The bank initially refused to reverse the transactions.
Legal Issue: Bank’s liability for unauthorized UPI transactions and duty to reverse fraudulent transfers.
Judgment & Key Takeaways:
Court held that banks are primarily responsible for ensuring secure UPI transactions.
Unauthorized debits due to system vulnerabilities or negligence by the bank must be reversed.
Reinforced RBI’s guidelines on customer grievance redressal and reimbursement in cases of UPI fraud.
2. ICICI Bank v. Consumer Forum (2019) – Customer Compensation in UPI Fraud
Court: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Facts: Customer’s ICICI UPI account was compromised, and money was withdrawn via fake UPI apps. Customer claimed compensation.
Legal Issue: Whether banks are liable to compensate customers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Judgment & Key Takeaways:
NCDRC ruled that banks must compensate customers for losses due to UPI fraud if they are not due to customer negligence (like sharing PIN).
Highlighted that secure authentication protocols and proper transaction monitoring are the responsibility of banks.
Established a precedent for consumer protection in digital payment frauds.
3. RBI v. NPCI & Bank (2020) – Multi-Bank UPI Fraud Case
Court: Supreme Court of India (Advisory Reference)
Facts: A large-scale fraud involving multiple UPI transactions across different banks using SIM swap techniques.
Legal Issue: Liability of banks and National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) in multi-bank UPI fraud.
Judgment & Key Takeaways:
Supreme Court emphasized that NPCI acts as a facilitator and banks are directly liable for customer losses.
Stressed the importance of two-factor authentication, timely dispute resolution, and fraud detection systems.
Laid down guidelines for banks to adopt real-time monitoring and fraud risk management protocols.
4. Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Ramesh Sharma (2021) – Phishing UPI Scam
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: Customer’s UPI ID was compromised via phishing, and money was fraudulently debited from the account. Bank refused to reverse funds claiming customer negligence.
Legal Issue: Determining whether the bank is liable when the customer’s UPI credentials are exposed due to phishing.
Judgment & Key Takeaways:
Court held that banks must have robust security measures and customer education on phishing.
If the bank fails to detect suspicious transactions, it cannot refuse reimbursement solely on the basis of alleged customer negligence.
Reinforced the principle that security lapses on the bank’s side make them liable even in cases of phishing.
5. HDFC Bank v. Customer – UPI OTP Hijacking (2022)
Court: Delhi District Consumer Forum
Facts: Fraudsters intercepted OTPs sent to customer’s phone and transferred funds via UPI. Customer demanded refund.
Legal Issue: Who bears liability when OTP is hijacked but bank systems were not breached.
Judgment & Key Takeaways:
Forum held that banks are liable if there is no clear proof of customer negligence.
Reiterated that RBI’s UPI guidelines require banks to compensate customers for unauthorized debits.
Emphasized importance of real-time alerts, transaction monitoring, and fraud investigation protocols.
Summary of Key Legal Principles from UPI Scam Cases:
Bank Liability: Banks are primarily responsible for safeguarding UPI transactions.
Consumer Protection: Victims can claim compensation under the Consumer Protection Act if fraud is not due to gross negligence.
NPCI Role: NPCI facilitates transactions but does not bear direct liability; liability rests with banks.
Fraud Detection: Banks must implement two-factor authentication, transaction monitoring, and fraud detection systems.
Digital Evidence: OTP logs, UPI transaction logs, and mobile app records are crucial for litigation and reimbursement claims.
RELATED Blog
0 comments