CHENNAI: Defunct telecom operator Aircel has been asked by a consumer forum to pay a compensation of Rs 8.5 lakhs for issuing a duplicate sim in the complainant’s number to an unknown person without a proper authentication process because of which Rs 7.5 lakhs was fraudulently taken from his bank account.
Since Aircel filed for bankruptcy in March 2018, the National Company Law Tribunal has decided to appoint an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to resolve this matter.
“Now that Aircel has closed down due to mounting losses, they have no money to pay the said amount according to the consumer forum order. My lawyers will be representing me at the IRP to get the due compensation,” said Bhushan Goyal, a resident of Egmore to Express. The forum also ordered Aircel to pay an interest of nine percent for Rs 7.5 lakhs until the amount is paid.
The matter dates back to 2016 when Bhushan, proprietor of an ice cream parlour here, had emailed Aircel for a new sim after he did not receive any signal on his phone for a day. The next day after activating his new sim, he realised that a transaction of Rs 7.5 lakhs had been made from his Indian Bank account to an unknown account.
When he visited the Aynavaram Aircel branch he discovered that an unknown person impersonating him, had visited the branch and applied for a new sim.
“Staff of Aircel had given this man a new sim in my number without asking for any ID proof or other documents to verify his identity. Later I came to know that this transaction was carried out using net banking and the OTP sent to my mobile number, which now that person has access to,” he said.
But Aircel in its petition stated that the complainant had compromised the safety of his account by revealing details regarding user ID, login password and transaction password without which a transfer of money was not possible. They also said that the imposter had produced a forged pan card and driving license of the complainant contrary to Goyal’s claims.
“The fraudster should be a known person acquainted with the complainant and also having access to his personal accounts. This is the direct result of complainant’s recklessness and we cannot be held responsible,” said Aircel in its defense.
But the Consumer Redressal Forum dismissed Aircel’s petition due to lack of evidence to substantiate their claims.