1. Case Study
Consumer held liable for disputed transactions made with her debit card

2. Mrs. Rai contacted her bank to complain that, over a three-month period, Rs.21,600 had been withdrawn from her account without her knowledge. The withdrawals had all been made from cash machines, using her debit card and PIN. She did not consider that she should be liable for the transactions and she thought that the bank should have done more to prevent them taking place.
According to Mrs. Rai, her debit card had been taken from her by a Mr. Sharma, who had made the disputed withdrawals without her permission and had then refused to give the card back. She said she often suffered from periods of depression and that, during these periods, Mr. Sharma "exercised control" over her. She assumed that he must have obtained her PIN by watching her use the card.

3. Complaint not upheld
We examined the audit trails for the cash withdrawals made from Mrs. Rai’s account during the period in question. These showed that all the withdrawals had been made with Mrs. Rai's genuine card and associated PIN.
It was difficult, from what Mrs. Rai was prepared to tell us, to get to the bottom of exactly how Mr. Sharma had obtained Mrs. Rai's debit card in the first place - or why she had not reported this to the bank right away. We also noted that the disputed transactions were interspersed with undisputed  transactions, made by Mrs. Rai herself. This did not seem to tie in with her statement that Mr. Sharma had refused to give her back the card.

4. Mrs. Rai had eventually reported her card to the bank as "lost or stolen", but not until some time after all the disputed withdrawals had been made. Mr. Sharma had told the bank that Mrs. Rai had allowed him to use the card and had given him the PIN. But because Mr. Sharma was not a party to the complaint, we had no power to question him about that.
After looking carefully at all the evidence, we accepted that Mrs. Rai had not actually made the disputed withdrawals herself.

5. However, we were unable to conclude that she had not in any way authorized them. We could not fairly say that the bank should be liable for the transactions, and we did not uphold the complaint. However, we reminded Mrs. Rai that our consideration of her complaint did not affect her right to take the matter to court - where witnesses such as Mr. Sharma could be compelled (to forced) to give evidence.

6. Problem Identification
Customers negligence in terms of debit card “stolen or loss”.
Bank is not responsible for disputed withdrawals .
Customer does not file case against bank or does not take matter to the court because of negligence of the customer.

7. Suggestive measures-
Problem identification in terms of internal audit trails.
Customers should complaint that card if loss or stolen immediately by submitting to bank to stop disputed withdrawals.
Immediate action against the individual who made the disputed withdrawals without the knowledge of customer.
System requirements in terms of fingerprint recognition or retina matching/ retinal scanning software by using biometric technology as a identification while making withdrawals.

8. By applying video camera technology with subtle near infrared illumination to acquire images while making withdrawals.
Information about any identity or security checks made in connection with the time of the disputed transaction.
Records for the paying –in machine used to make the disputed transaction.
Copies of any paperwork relating to disputed transaction.

9. Thank you.