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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
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