| Address: | Bangalore, Karnataka |
Dear sir/ma'am,
I write to this institution to get answers of few basic questions that pose affect on all credit card holders.
1. In case of a misuse on a card, when the card holder reports misuse and asks to block the card and raises dispute on the said transactions, the bank goes for an investigation (30 days long). What is the purpose of the investigation?
2. When the customer has and provides the bank all the proofs (including FIR) that the transaction was not done by him and the merchant has clearly been negligent and has performed an illegitimate transaction, does the bank have a capacity to produce the case to VISA/MASTER? If yes, shouldn't the bank wait for investigation results from VISA/MASTER, before asking the customer to pay or closing the case, when case is about the negligence and hence an illegitimate transaction by merchant?
This is regarding the harassment I have been a subject to because of Standard Chartered Bank.
I had a Standard Chartered credit card (MASTERCARD), bearing account number '[protected]'.
There was a misuse that happened on my card and as per bank since the misuse happened before the card was blocked i am liable to pay for it. I did abide by banks decision and have done the payments but the question still remains: For a misuse is the card holder solely responsible? What is the liability of the merchant who accepted payment without following the guidelines? When i intimated the bank of the messages i had received, i was told that the transaction is yet not approved by the bank and hence it is not reflected in the system. I told them to NOT approve the transaction as i have not done it. I was told not to worry and if i have not done it i will not have to pay for it. Still the bank later approved the transactions instead of holding it as was instructed by card holder and asks me to pay for it. Is this fair??
I understand that the card was lost and as a owner I was suppose to take care of it. But the question is am i the only one at fault here?
When a merchant gets into an agreement with a provider bank, to enable him to accept card payments,
he also becomes liable to ensure certain security checks. If he is not following the security measures
what is the penalty imposed on him?
In my case Merchant accepted 4 transactions for 3 mobile phones (without questioning the user for why he wants to do that), did not match the signatures, did not take any id proof, isn't he breaking all the clauses of agreement he makes with the provider bank? Why is he not being penalised for his neglegence? I understand that standard chartered bank had to make payments back to MASTERCARD which had already paid merchant's provider bank, but knowing the case pretty well isn't it my banks responsibility to present the case to MASTERCARD which can send it to merchant's provider bank. The merchant has breached the law, why does he gets away with it? just because he is going to get the banks much more business than an individual like me can ever?
I would like to understand why did my bank go for an investigation, took a month, and said i have to
pay as the transactions were done before the card was blocked. At no point did i tell bank that the transactions were done after blocking the card. I called to block the card when i got first two messages and by the time i got to customer care executive 2 more messages had come (there were 4 transactions in less than 4 mins time and bank didnt block the transactions!) What exactly was my bank investigating on for a month?
In my understanding, in my case, the investigation should have been focussed to decide if i have done the
transaction or not. If not the proofs of the same should have been sent to MASTERCARD to send it further to merchant's provider bank. Proofs like no id being taken by mercahnt, signs on all the 4 charge slips not matching with each other and neither with the signatures on the card. But to my disappointment my bank was only committed to get more business from MASTERCARD and wanted to pay them back without even investigating at all in the card holders interest.
I would like to bring to your notice the following :
1. When I receive a new credit card, the first point that is mentioned on the sheet it comes pasted on is "Please sign on the signature panel, on the reverse of your card immediately to prevent any possible misuse". I did just as was said. Disappointing, this security measure is just namesake. It did not prevent the misuse. If the banks have no capability or has no interest in practicing the rights they have to serve the purpose, why should it fool the customers/card holders by such an statement?
2. When a merchant accepts a credit card for transaction, its his responsibility to match the customer's
signatures on the charge slips against those on the signature panel on the reverse of the card.
Attached is a scan of all 4 chargeslips "Chargeslips_Bills.pdf". I see that the signatures don't match AT
ALL!! Even the 4 transaction slips, the signatures are not identical!
3. The merchant who is accepting a credit card for a transaction of more than INR 10,000/- is supposed to
ask for a government ID from the customer and should keep a copy of the same for the authenticity of
the Credit Card user. I have learned this with my experience while shopping at reputed merchants. This
was also NOT DONE!!
4. The merchant did try and have some information of the customer by making him fill the Customer Data form. Scan is attached herewith "Chargeslips_Bills.pdf'. The address does not make any sense, the mobile number is a hoax, there is no e-mail address..
5. The merchant's premises had a CCTV system installed, which was SWITCHED OFF (out of order as stated by the merchant) when the transaction was done.
6. I had filed an FIR for the same Because of the FIR, the case is with the Police now. Neither the Police, nor the Court of Law has proved that I am liable to make the payments for these transactions. How has Standard Chartered concluded already that I am liable to pay?
I hope the ConsumerComplaints forum can help me in this case as I have suffered a huge loss because of it and the banks behavior/policies are totally not justified.
Thanks,
Gaurav Banyal,
Bangalore - 560103.
Was this information helpful?
Post your Comment