Skip to main content

Onus on consumers to protect bank passwords - Maharashtra state Consumer Redressal Commission


The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on Wednesday dismissed a complaint filed by a man who alleged that his credit card had been fraudulently used to book air tickets worth Rs 32,000. "Since the transaction is effected by using the credit card and a secret password of the complainant, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opponent (bank). In such cases, the complainant should have approached the cyber crime branch," the panel said.

On October 14, 2009, an amount of Rs 34,529 was debited from Balkatta Hegade's account. On inquiring with ICICI Bank Ltd, he was told his card was used to purchase air tickets from a travel and tour company. He contended he had not purchased the tickets and that his password was used. He stated that during the transaction, his signature was not taken on the voucher.

Hegade said the name, number and address on which the tickets were drawn were fraudulent. He issued a notice in April 2010 to the bank, requesting them to cancel the entry. As the bank did not respond favourably, Hegade filed a complaint in a district forum.

The bank contended that the transaction was done using a credit card and the password, which was known only to Hegade. The bank said that it had provided Hegade with the details of the transaction and had told Hegade to file an FIR, but he did not taken any action.

The forum dismissed Hegade's complaint, following which he filed an appeal in the state commission. The commission said Hegade had expected the bank to cancel the tickets and invalidate the online transaction. "The opponent (bank) does not have the powers to cancel the tickets and to invalidate the online transaction," the panel said.

Article referred:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Onus-on-consumers-to-protect-bank-passwords/articleshow/19641171.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more