Dec 22, 2016
Updated by nileshwar N G Nileshwar
101, Sharda CHS Ltd,
Natwar Nagar Road No. 3,
Jogeshwari East,
Mumbai 400060.
Tel: 28263718/Mob: [protected]
Date: 23rd December 2016
To,
Smt. Ranjana Sahajwala
Office of the Bankiing Ombudsman,
C/o Reserve
Bank of India
Byculla Office Building, 4th Floor
Byculla, Mumbai - 400 008.
Dear Madam,
Sub: Fraudulent usage of Non-Chip Debit card No. [protected] VISA and credit card No. [protected] VISA both issued by
ICICI bank.
On Wednesday, 12th October 2016, two transactions, authenticated with a 3D Secure Pin, were alleged to have been made by me as mentioned in the SMS messages received on my Mobile No. [protected].
1.Dear Customer, You have made a Debit Card purchase of INR9, 999.00 on 12 Oct. Info.IIN*
PayTm Mobil. Your Net Available Balance is INR 14, 41, 367.20...19.41 hrs
2.Dear Customer, You have made a Debit Card purchase of INR9, 999.00 on 12 Oct. Info.IIN*
PayTm Mobil. Your Net Available Balance is INR 14, 31, 368.20... 19.44 hrs.
My complaint refuting the two transactions was lodged around 21.00 hrs of 12th November 2016 itself through the phone banking system.
Subsequently, this complaint was registered as SR No.[protected] dated 12Th November 2016 .The Card member Dispute form was lodged on 13Th November 2016. at the bank’s Jogeshwari East branch as “I neither incurred nor authorised the above transaction.”
Similarly, I have suffered another fraud on the subject credit card on 10th October 2016 for Rs.8, 320/- by one Shop Mantraa_EPayKerela under transaction no. 74678446285516019180142. I confirm not having made this transaction and not received any goods/services. A copy of the SMS received also encourages further purchases on their mobile no. [protected]. Of course, this number is not active. It appears that the site “Shop Mantraa_EPayKerela” does not exist as also the mobile No.
I have been following up with the bank and gone through their Grievance Redressal System meticulously but to no avail.
I have lodged a
Police Complaint at the Jogeshwari
Police Station on 19th October 2016, after my grievances were rejected by the bank and I was advised to file a
police complaint. The necessary FIR is still to be lodged by the
Police.
Based on the stand of the bank that it was a third party transaction for which the bank was not responsible. Therefore, I had taken up the matter with M/s
PayTM, through whom these fraudulent transactions were made. They have furnished the details of the transactions, including the bank account which received the credit.
Finally, based on the details provided by M/s
PayTM,
YES Bank, through whom the transactions were effected, was also approached. This bank flatly refused to entertain my grievance seeking details of the account, so that these I could furnish these to the
police as desired by them.
I re-iterate that I have not made of these transactions and now being made to run from pillar to post to seek a refund of the amounts debited fraudulently to my account. The easiest way to refute a claim on a fraudulent transaction is to put the onus of establishing the fraud on the card holder.
A customer of about 15 years being handled so casually, showing total trust deficit in him, makes me re-consider usage of our card banking. I feel my monies are not in safe hands, especially since I have not received any evidence of co-operation on these transactions from the bank. A procedural dispute resolution method and a superfluous investigation carried out on the fake transactions, without furnishing any details is shocking. When details of the transactions are provided, the rule book is confronted.
In short, the message I get from the entire episode is that I take a card with a liability of fraud, with no protection or administrative machinery available at my command to investigate my claim of fraud. Safety of the card is the responsibility of the card-holder, but this card-holder would never like to subject himself to its fraudulent usage.
With the Government emphasising on on-line transactions by the usage of cards,
PayTM and the like, such instances have made headlines, with no relief in sight.
It is now 61 days that a fraud has been committed, and I am no where near to its resolution.
I, therefore seek your kind intervention and also a ruling on the following points:
1. A card is issued by the bank. A transaction once executed on a card should be the responsibility of the card issuer. Investigation of any allegation of fraudulent usage should also be attributed to the bank, simply because the card-holder has no authority of law to investigate into the crime. Inter-bank relations effectively resolve the issue.
2. Third party transactions should not be permitted on these cards and if permitted, they should be the responsibility and liability of the card issuer, especially when a fraud is alleged.
In the matter of justice, your immediate response is expected per return.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
N G Nileshwar
Enclo: complete correspondence - pages.
Post your Comment