SIM swapping a menace: Gauhati High Court after Airtel customer loses over 8 lakh to bank fraud

The Gauhati High Court recently remarked that the SIM swap scam, under which fraudsters manage to get a duplicate SIM of a customer’s number, was turning out to be a menace and resulting in various bank frauds [Paresh Chandra Deka vs The State Of Assam And Ors]..Justice Devashis Baruah made the observation while directing the Centre to inform whether a violation of the instructions issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) for issuance of duplicate SIM cards had resulted in a banking fraud with an Airtel customer.The Court was hearing a matter seeking recovery of about ₹8,95,040 which had been fraudulently withdrawn from the State Bank of India (SBI) account of a pensioner Paresh Chandra Deka (petitioner).The withdrawal through at least 12 transactions had taken place after fraudsters had allegedly managed to obtain a duplicate Airtel SIM card of the number linked to the petitioner’s bank account. .The Court referred to the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2017 on customer liability in the unauthorised electronic banking transactions and opined that the provision pertaining to the cases where deficiency lies neither with the customer nor the bank, may be applicable to the petitioner’s case. The Court took note of the alleged violation of the DoT circular by Airtel and said,“Therefore, for the purpose of a proper and effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, and also taking into account that this SIM swapping has become a menace resulting in various bank frauds, this Court is of the view that the Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications … is required to be made a party respondent in the instant proceedings.”.Accordingly, the Court added the central ministry as a party to the case and asked it to apprise the bench “on the basis of the materials on record as to whether there has been a violation” of instructions by Airtel when it issued a duplicate sim to a fraudster.The petitioner had lost the amount to fraudulent transactions in 2020, after which the police arrested five persons. The transactions had taken place between October 2 and October 4, 2020 when the original SIM card linked to the bank account was not working. Interestingly, the petitioner also had never applied for internet banking. After the SIM card had become inoperative, the petitioner’s daughter Tulika Deka in whose name the SIM card was registered, had lodged a complaint with the Airtel..From the record, the Court found that a fraudster had, on October 1, 2020, applied for a duplicate SIM of Deka’s number on the basis of an electoral card. It also examined the application filed by Deka herself for a duplicate SIM.While Deka’s enrolment application mentioned her village as Murara, Rangiya and had a particular date of birth, the one filed by the person impersonating her had a different address and date of birth. “Apparently, both the identifying documents did not match with the date of birth as well as the address of the daughter of the petitioner,” the Court said..In this backdrop, the Court looked into the instructions of the DoT for issuance of new SIM cards in case of “swapping/replacement/upgradation” by the customer.It found that the telecom company as per the instructions was required to match the documents filed by the customer with the copy of documents given initially by her and only then could it issue the SIM card.“This Court, however, fails to understand that when the address and the date of birth details mentioned in the identity document which was in the records of the Airtel did not match with the details submitted in the application filed on 01.10.2020 [by the fraudster] and the Identity Document, how could the employee of the Airtel … have recorded the satisfaction that he had matched with the record and give a declaration,” asked the Court. Therefore, the Court made the Central government a party to the case for its response and listed the matter for consideration on April 2..Advocate R Dhar represented the petitioner. [Read Order]