How to file a complaint regarding ATM skimming, net banking, debit or credit card fraud

-

With the increase in the digital way of life, especially when it comes to Electronic financial transactions, the risk of financial frauds cannot be ignored. A fraudulent online transaction in one's bank account, debit or credit card could be because of e-mail spoofing, phishing or it could have been an act committed by cloning one's card.

  1. OTP Fraud has become an easy way for fraudsters to make quick money. Lakhs of Indians have fallen prey to this fraud and lost crores of rupees. Even though government and banks have been alerting citizens not to provide bank details and One Time Passwords (OTPs), victims of OTP frauds are on the rise. If you read newspapers, there would be at least one such case a day.
  2. ATM skimming is a theft of card information, where a small device, known as a skimmer, is used to steal the information during a legitimate ATM transaction. As the card is swiped at the machine, the skimmer device captures the information stored on the card's magnetic strip. 


What to do in case of a credit/debit card fraud The moment you come to know that a suspicious transaction has been done on your credit/debit card, inform the card issuer immediately. One should lodge a formal complaint with the bank and ideally call up the customer care number to block the card or the account immediately.

How to file a complaint:
where to file a complaint(First step): once the card issuer or the bank has been informed about fraudulent transactions, one should file a written complaint with the nearest police station.But, before filing a written complaint with the police or bank or the card issuer, make sure you have at least these following documents with you:
  1. Bank statement of the last six months of the concerned bank
  2. Make a copy of SMSs received related to the alleged transactions
  3. Take a copy of your ID proof and address proof as shown in the bank records
  4. Lodge a complaint in your nearest police station explaining the complete incidence along with the above documents


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more