DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of January 2023
Filed on: 26/11/2015
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 780/2015
Between
COMPLAINANT
Ajith Sathya Murthi, S/o. C.S. Sathyamoorthy, ‘Vrindavanam’, Kumaranasan Road, Kochi – 17. Rep. by his POA holder Anju P. Pillai, W/o. Ajith Sathya Murthi, Vrindavanam’, Kumaranasan Road, Kochi – 17.
(Rep. by Adv. G. Hariharan, G. Hariharan & Associates, 49/489 – B3, Shivakripa, 1st Floor, Puthukalavattom Jn., Elamakkara P.O., Ernakulam 682026)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. M/s. Union Bank of India, NRI Branch, MG Road, Kochi 682035.
2. The Manager, M/s. Union Bank of India, NRI Branch, MG Road, Kochi 682035.
(Rep. by Adv. Rajesh Thomas, No. 41/3792, Cs, 1st Floor, Carmel Centre, Banerji Road, Kochi 682018)
FINAL ORDER
V. Ramachandran, Member:
The complainant states that he was employed as a Marine Engineer and was working in South Africa. The 1st opposite party is a Scheduled Bank and the 2nd opposite party is the Manager of 1st opposite party where the complainant is holding an account. The complainant states that after leaving the vessel and on the way back home and while the complainant on his return journey to Kochi with his International Debit Card which is issued by the opposite party with No. ending as 0349 issued against Account No. 501902020050370 for NRI Account of the complainant with a limit of withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- per month and restricted transaction for 10 per day. The complainant took an amount of South African Rand (ZAR) 600 which is approximately 2800 INR. Thereafter the complainant had not used the card and travelled from South Africa to cochin and upon reaching Kochi on 24/10/2015 the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.4,05,263/- has been debited from his account and the details of withdrawal is furnished by the complainant as a schedule.
The complainant alleges that somebody had taken his money because of the reason that the opposite party had not taken measures to prevent cyber attacks stating that the opposite parties had not complied with the directions issued by Reserve Bank of India, which is as follows:-
i. All new debit and credit cards to be issued only for domestic usage unless international use is specifically sought by the customer, such cards enabling international usage will have to be essentially EMV chip and Pin enabled (By June 30, 2013.
ii. Issuing banks should convert all existing MagStripe cards to EMV Chip card for all customers who have used their cards internationally at least once (for/through e-commerce/ATM/POS) (By June 30,2013)
iii. All the MagStripe International cards issued by banks should have threshold limit for international usage. The threshold should be determined by the banks based on the risk profile of the customer and accepted by the customer (June 30, 2013). Till such time this process is completed an omnibus threshold limit (say, not exceeding USD 500) as determined by each bank may be put in place for all debit cards and all credit cards that that not been used for international transactions in the past.
iv. Banks should ensure that the terminals installed at the merchants for capturing card payments (including the double swipe terminal used) should be certified for PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry-Data Security Standards) and PA-DSS (Payment Application-Data Security Standards) (By June 30, 2013)
v. Bank should frame rules based on the transaction pattern of the usage of cards by the customers in coordination with the authorized card payment networks for arresting fraud. This would act as a fraud prevention measure (By June 30, 2013)
vi. Banks should ensure that all acquiring infrastructure that is currently operational on IP (Internal Protocol) based solutions are mandatorily made to go through PCI-DSS and PA-DSS certification. This should include acquirers, processors/aggregators and large merchants (By June 30, 2013)
vii. Bank should move towards real time fraud monitoring system at the earliest.
viii. Banks should provide easier methods (like SMS) for the customer to block his card and get a confirmation to that effect after blocking the card.
ix. Banks should have move towards a system that facilitates implementation of additional factor of authentication for cards issued in India and used internationally (transactions acquired by banks located abroad)
x. Banks should build in a system of call referral in co-ordination with the card payment networks based on the rules framed at (v) above
And therefore the complainant filed this petition alleging deficiency of service from the side of opposite party for getting an order directing the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.4,05,263/- with 12% interest per annum along with other reliefs.
Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared and filed their written statement of version in which the opposite parties stated that the fraudulent transactions can happen only when the card details are compromised or counterfeit/cloned cards has been used. Therefore no fault can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties. How the card details were compromised or a counterfeit card was made is also a matter which is not known to the opposite parties. It is in this context as per the existing system, few security measures are provided by the Bank to its customers. They are (a) while doing on line transactions, One Time Password (OTP) is sent to the registered mobile number with the bank: (b) for doing Point of Sales (POS) transactions, card secured code password is created by the customer using secret credentials including ATM Pin which is known to the customer only. Details of these facilities are available in the leaflets given to the customers along with the Card, and also can be gathered from Bank’s Branches/ Call Centre and periodical SMS/e-mails are sent to the customers regarding the safety measures to be taken. The system of blocking debit card through SMS is also in place. The contact no. of the call centre of the bank is available on the debit card itself and also in the Bank’s website. The same is also mentioned in the bank’s passbook. Negligence on the part of the complainant also cannot be ruled out. All the daily transactions are within threshold limits and only minor variations are there according to the value of currency, and the timings are also different in a foreign country with that of the Indian Standard Time. It is not because of the failure of the system that these fraudulent transactions have happened. In case of counterfeit cards also, as per bank Policy the charge back cannot be allowed, as the nationalized bank’s money is public money. Hence no fault can be attributed on the side of the opposite parties and since the negligence of the complainant also cannot be ruled out and no case of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service is attributable, the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint. There is no deficiency in the service or unfair trade practice attributable on the part of the opposite parties. This is the substance of version filed by the opposite parties
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with 9 documents which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A9 and the opposite parties filed 3 documents and are marked as Exbt. B1 to B3. Exbt. A1 is the copy of Power of attorney, Exbt. A2 is copy of boarding pass, Exbt. A3 is copy of account statement, Exbt. A4 is the copy of passport, Exbt. A5 is the ID card, Exbt. A6 is the copy of letter sent to the opposite party Exbt. A7 is the copy of letter sent to Sub Inspector of Police, Kadavanthara, Exbt. A8 is the copy of FIR, Exbt. A9 is the copy of direction issued by RBI, Exbt. B1 is the copy of letter issued to the complainant, Exbt. B2 is the copy of account statement and Exbt. B3 is the copy of account statement. There is no oral evidence from either side.
On going through all the above documents and on analysis of the history of the case the Commission examined the following points.
1. Whether the complainant is sustained to any sort of deficiency of service, or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible to get any relief from the opposite party?
3. Cost of the proceedings if any?
It is seen that the occurrence of incident happened outside India and even the timings of India and South Africa are different. The complainant had not produced any documents to substantiate that he had kept his ATM card safe and had not transferred the Password or OTP if any received. He had also not produced any evidence to the effect that he had not received messages regarding withdrawal of money in time from the Bank but stated that he had received the message only upon reaching Kochi. At this stage it is also to be taken to account that chances that the network of mobile phone is interrupted on occasions during air travel and above all the incident being something which requires a wide extensive investigation since it occurred outside India. Without this a fair conclusion cannot be derived in the matter and the Apex Court on different occasions had issued direction in case where there are huge and vast investigation required in complaints, which shall not be decided by District Commissions. This is one of the best examples of such cases. Therefore Point No. (1) is proved against the complainant, since the complainant could not establish deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.
Since the complainant had not established his case on merit, the complaint is to be dismissed and therefore dismissed,
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 24th day of January 2023,
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exbt. A1: Copy of Power of attorney
Exbt. A2: Copy of boarding pass
Exbt. A3: Copy of account statement
Exbt. A4: Copy of passport
Exbt. A5: Copy of ID card
Exbt. A6: Copy of letter sent to the opposite party
Exbt. A7: Copy of letter sent to Sub Inspector of Police, Kadavanthara
Exbt. A8: Copy of FIR
Exbt. A9: Copy of direction issued by RBI
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Exbt. B1: Copy of letter issued to the complainant
Exbt. B2: Copy of account statement
Exbt. B3: Copy of account statement
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 322/2018
Order Date: 24/01/2023
