SIM swap scam: NCDRC restores order directing Airtel to compensate Army man who lost ₹2.87 lakh

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently held Airtel liable to compensate an Army man who lost ₹2.87 lakh in a bank fraud in 2017 after the telecom company negligently issued a duplicate SIM card for his mobile number [Shyam Kumar V. Bharti Airtel Limited and 2 Ors]..Presiding Member Dr Inder Jit Singh restored District Forum, Almora's 2018 ruling by which Airtel had been directed to pay ₹2,87,630 to the complainant Shyam Kumar along with a compensation of ₹1 Lakh and ₹15,000 litigation cost. In 2017, an unknown person fraudulently obtained a SIM card with the same mobile number as that of the Army man and withdrew ₹2,87,630 from his bank account.The Commission found Airtel to have failed to perform its due diligence in verifying the identity of the individual who had obtained the duplicate SIM, and concluded that the same had directly facilitated the fraud."We are of the considered view that a reasonable standard of care was not maintained by the OPs (respondents/Bharti Airtel). A prudent service provider should have matched the existing documents of the complainant with those submitted for the duplicate SIM request. The failure to ensure this verification led to the issuance of the duplicate SIM, which enabled subsequent fraudulent activities," it said..The Commission also noted that though Kumar, who was posted with the Army in Jammu and Kashmir's Gurez Sector at that time, had promptly reported the fraud and attempted to rectify the situation through his department, Airtel's response was inadequate.It thus held that the negligence in verifying the identity of the individual requesting the duplicate SIM, constituted a deficiency in service. "This negligence directly resulted in the financial loss suffered by the complainant," the Commission said in its June 5 order..The Commission was hearing a revision petition filed by Kumar against Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision.The State Commission had overturned the District Forum's order to compensate him.The State Commission had in 2019 allowed Airtel's appeal and ruled that Kumar's complaint before the District Forum was non-maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction since the SIM was swapped in Bihar. Thus, the officer had moved NCDRC seeking relief..The National Commission found State Commission to have erroneously dismissed the complaint on the ground that the District Forum in Almora lacked territorial jurisdiction.It observed that while Airtel operates as a telecom service provider across the country, the complainant (Kumar) was posted in Gurez sector when he was unable to use the mobile phone due to lack of network.He was posted in Almora when he made the complaint before the District Forum there."Given that the complainant is serving in the Indian Army, pursuing the complaint in a different jurisdiction would cause significant hardship and potentially interfere with his duties. The principles of substantial justice favor allowing the complainant to file the complaint in a jurisdiction where he can practically and reasonably seek redress, particularly considering the telecom company's nationwide presence," it added..On merits, the Commission noted that the District Forum's investigation had revealed significant discrepancies in the documentation used in issuing the duplicate SIM. "The complainant's original documents, including photographs and identification, were on file with the mobile company. However, these were not adequately compared with the documents presented for the duplicate SIM issuance, which featured different photographs and lacked the necessary verification," it said..Hence, it concluding that Airtel's negligence had led to complainant's financial loss and the services provided by the telecom company failed to meet the reasonable standards expected, particularly given the serious implications of issuing a duplicate SIM. "Accordingly, the OP-1 & 2 [Bharti Airtel are liable for the deficiency in service, and the complainant is entitled to relief for the financial loss incurred due to the OP-1 & 2's failure to perform due diligence in verifying the identity of the requester for the duplicate SIM," it said while setting aside the decision of State Commission..Advocates Pulkit Tare and Anup Jain appeared for the complainant.Advocates Harsh Kaushik and Arpit Srivastava represented Bharti Airtel Limited. .[Read Order]