On 5 November 2026, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal dismissed Punjab National Bank's appeal against compensation ordered for Rs 16.34 lakh in unauthorised online transfers from a current account after a duplicate-SIM incident. The case concerns April 2019 transactions and does not create an automatic refund rule for every dispute.
What the tribunal decided
TDSAT dismissed Cyber Appeal No. 9 of 2021 brought by Punjab National Bank against Green Environmental Technology and BSNL. It upheld the Madhya Pradesh adjudicating officer’s 1 September 2021 order directing the bank to pay the customer’s withdrawn amount with the specified interest. The account was originally held with Oriental Bank of Commerce, which later merged into PNB. This is a judicial decision in a particular complaint, not an announcement of a new bank-wide compensation scheme.
How the unauthorised withdrawals happened
The customer had an internet-banking current account with a registered BSNL mobile number. The SIM stopped functioning, and a duplicate SIM was allegedly issued to an unauthorised third party without the prescribed verification. Online transfers through the banking facility on 9-10 April 2019 resulted in withdrawals totalling Rs 16,34,000. The customer reported the problem and pursued the complaint. The tribunal treated the unauthorised nature of the transactions as undisputed. Private account and telephone numbers are deliberately not reproduced here.
What the 2021 order awarded
The original adjudicating officer ordered the bank to reimburse Rs 16,34,000 with compound interest calculated in the manner specified by the order, from the date of the disputed transactions until payment. A separate lump-sum Rs 1,50,000 was awarded for mental agony and certain expenses, with half payable by PNB and half by BSNL. The underlying order also specified additional interest in the event of delay in that separate payment. The figures refer to different heads of relief and should not be added together as though they were the disputed transfer amount.
Why the bank’s appeal was unsuccessful
PNB contended that bank security had not failed and the matter stemmed from SIM misuse and the customer’s handling of credentials. The tribunal disagreed with the attempt to overturn the adjudication. It reasoned that controls governing login credentials, beneficiary addition and transactions fall within the internet-banking provider’s domain. It also discussed the Reserve Bank of India’s 6 July 2017 circular on customer liability for unauthorised electronic banking transactions. In the circumstances found in the case, it held that the amount should have been credited within ten working days after notification; the bank had received notice on 15 April 2019.
Why BSNL also remained responsible
The adjudicating officer found that BSNL had issued a duplicate SIM without verifying the applicant against the original identity documents as required by the telecom process. The tribunal noted that BSNL had not appealed that finding and did not participate in the appeal hearing. Its share of the separate Rs 1.50 lakh award remained undisturbed; enforcement could be sought before the appropriate forum. The ruling does not fix an identical telecom/bank allocation in every future SIM-related incident.
Implementation and lessons for banking operations
Banks should preserve customer fraud notifications, transaction logs and beneficiary-enrolment evidence; apply the applicable RBI liability and provisional-credit framework; and document security checks around access and high-risk online transfers. Prompt mitigation after a compromised mobile number is reported matters. The correct treatment of any other case depends on its facts, the customer type, relevant regulatory provisions and the evidence. The bank’s existing deposit of the decretal amount with the tribunal registrar was directed to be released to the complainant with accrued interest.
Chronology and status
The alleged compromise and online withdrawals occurred in April 2019, the adjudicating officer gave the first decision on 1 September 2021, and TDSAT dismissed the appeal on 5 November 2026. LawLens published the ruling summary on 5 November 2026 at 7:44 PM IST. No later stay or review was independently established in this research. The judgment text itself was inspected.
Sources and References
Please consult the cited sources and check the exact applicability of any legal or employment change. Corrections are welcomed.
Join the discussion