April 2022

With the advent of digital systems and consequent digital or online banking, there has been a rapid increase in cyber frauds worldwide. The Indian banking industry is no exception for the same. Cyber financial scams in banking mainly include cons that have taken place in automated teller machines (ATMs), debit cards, credit cards and Internet banking platforms. While the number of reported cyber frauds have remained above 50,000, money recovered by banks in all these cases is less than 10%, the Lok Sabha was informed.   Although the number of fraudulent transactions increased in FY20-21, the amount was down as compared to the previous year. The data for FY21-22 is available only till December and on a pro-rata basis, looks similar to FY20-21. Banks have been able to recover Rs15.18 crore (10%) in FY18-19, Rs24.78 crore (10%) in FY19-20, Rs13.51 crore (6%) in FY20-21 and Rs11.7 crore (7%) in FY21-22 till December, respectively, from the total fraud amount, shows data shared by Dr Bhagwat Karad, minister of state for finance. Krupal Balaji Tumane and Vinayak Raut, both members of Parliament (MPs) have asked for details of the number of financial cyber frauds, the amount involved, and cyber frauds committed on digital payment platforms like unified payment interface (UPI). Maharashtra has been reporting highest number of cyber frauds, both in terms of number of frauds and amount. Haryana, TamiNadu, UP and NCR (National Capital Region) of Delhi are the other top destinations. In FY21-22 (Till December) these regions amounted to ~75% fraudulent transactions and ~70% in fraud amount, down from 87% transactions and 75% amount in FY18-19. This shows that frauds are becoming more prevalent across the country.  Kotak Mahindra Bank, American Express and HDFC Bank have been reporting many cyber frauds over the years, though American express seems to have got its act together. Over the years, cybercriminals are becoming more sophisticated, which is making it harder for customers and organisations to defend themselves from such attacks. According to RBI guidelines following are the main types of cyber frauds taking place in banking space • Vishing- Phone calls pretending to be from a bank or non-bank e-wallet providers and telecom service providers to lure customers into sharing confidential details in the pretext of KYC-updation, unblocking of account, SIM-card, and crediting debited amount. • Phishing- Spoofed emails and or SMSs designed to dupe customers into thinking that the communication has originated from their bank or e-wallet provider and contain links to extract confidential details. • Remote Access- By luring customers to download an app on their mobile phone or software on the computer, which can access all the customers’ data on that customer device. • Misuse the ‘collect request’ feature of UPI by sending fake payment requests with messages like ‘Enter your UPI PIN’ to receive money. • Fake numbers of banks or e-wallet providers on web pages and social media and displayed by search engines. RBI mentions the following safe digital banking practices that banking customers should follow for not falling prey to cyber frauds • Never share your account details such as account number, login ID, password, PIN, UPI-PIN, OTP, ATM / debit card or credit card details with anyone, not even with bank officials, however genuine they might sound. • Any phone call or email threatening the blocking of your account on the pretext of non-updation of KYC and suggestion to click the link for updating the same is a common modus operandi of fraudsters. Do not respond to offers for getting KYC updated or expedited. Always access the official website of your bank, NBFC or e-wallet provider or contact the branch. • Do not download any unknown app on your phone or device. The app may access your confidential data secretly. • Transactions involving receipt of money do not require scanning barcodes or QR codes or entering MPIN. Thus, exercise caution if asked to do so. • Do check the official website of the bank, NBFC or e-wallet provider for contact details. Contact numbers on internet search engines may be fraudulent. • Check URLs and domain names received in emails or SMSs for spelling errors. Use only verified, secured, and trusted websites and apps for online banking, that is, websites starting with “https”. In case of suspicion, notify local police or cybercrime branch immediately. • If you receive an OTP for debiting your account for a transaction not initiated by you, inform your bank or e-wallet provider immediately. If you receive a debit SMS for a transaction not done, inform your bank or e-wallet provider immediately and block all modes of debit, including UPI. If you suspect any fraudulent activity in your account, check for any addition to the beneficiary list enabled for internet or mobile banking. • Do not share the password of your email linked to your bank or e-wallet account. Do not have common passwords for e-commerce and social media sites and your bank account or email ID linked to your bank account. Avoid banking through public, open or free networks. • Do not set your email password as the word “password” while registering in any website or app with your email as the default user ID. The password used for accessing your email, especially if linked with your account, should be unique and used only for email access, not for accessing any other website or app. • Do not be misled by advice intimating a deposit of money on your behalf with RBI for foreign remittances, receipt of commission, or lottery wins. • Regularly check your email and phone messages for alerts from your financial service provider. Report any unauthorised transaction observed to your bank, NBFC or service provider immediately for blocking the card,  account, or wallet to prevent any further losses. • Secure your cards and set a daily limit for transactions. You may also set limits and activate/deactivate for domestic/international use. This can limit the loss due to fraud. Reporting Cyber Frauds Customers needs to contact their bank immediately. If bank

30th March 2022: Based on the notices issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) against misleading advertisements, 13 companies withdrew misleading advertisements and three agreed for corrective advertisement, the Lok Sabha was informed on Wednesday. “The CCPA also imposed penalties on three companies for their misleading advertisements. CCPA had recently issued two safety notices to alert and make consumers cautious against buying household goods which do not conform to BIS standards,” Union Minister of State for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Ashwini Kumar Choubey said in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha. An advisory has also been issued to industry associations highlighting the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and to impress upon their members to cease from making false claims about effectiveness against the coronavirus, which are not supported by competent and duly authorized scientific advice, he said. Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, CCPA was established on July 24, 2020 to regulate matters, inter alia, relating to false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of public and consumers as a class. The CCPA can issue directions to the concerned trader or manufacturer or endorser or advertiser or publisher, as the case may be, to discontinue such advertisement or to modify the same. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 also provides for imposition of penalty by the CCPA on a manufacturer or endorser or publisher and imprisonment and penalty by a competent court on any manufacturer or service provider, who is found responsible for a false or misleading advertisement. All advertisements telecast on private satellite TV channels are required to adhere to the Advertising Code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 framed thereunder. Appropriate action is taken in cases where Advertising Code is found to be violated. To another question, the Minister said, section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 describes responsibility of Food Business Operators in respect of packaging and labeling of food products while Section 24 places restrictions on misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices. The FSSAI has notified the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations on November 19, 2018. These regulations are aimed at establishing fairness in claims and advertisements of food products and make food businesses accountable for such claims/advertisements so as to protect consumer interests, he replied. Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article. Source: timesofindia.com

31st March 2022: India has a massive base of consumers from the middle-class and above, who buy a variety of high-value products, including automobiles, gadgets, white goods, consumer electronics, and appliances. However, nearly one in two Indian consumers got stuck with one or more high-value products with inherent defects. Consumers say the redressal of defective products is broken for many brands. Most of them want the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to fix this, finds a survey conducted by LocalCircles. According to LocalCircles, most Indian consumers generally only evaluate the product features, prices, discounts, look and feel and make their purchase decision. With e-commerce apps also now in the mainstream, some of these purchases happen based on comparisons with other products, reviews and ratings. “Based on thousands of experiences received over the last 24 months by LocalCircles, it appears that the real battle for some consumers begins when they find the high-value product they bought is not functioning properly and has an inherent defect. Those consumers who are aware resort to reaching the warranty department of the brand to find redressal while others get it repaired locally. Many others just end up using these defective products unless it is completely defunct,” it added. From laptops to television sets and from automobiles to smartphones, the issue cuts across a large number of products, LocalCircles says, adding that, in only a handful of such cases, the warranty department responds quickly, and the grievance is redressed within days while, in a sizable number of them, it takes a long time to sort out the issue. LocalCircles conducted a nationwide study to gauge consumers’ pulse on getting a defective high-value product fixed or replaced. It received over 28,000 responses from consumers residing in 355 districts of India. The first question in the survey asked consumers, “In the last two years, how often did you find that the electrical, electronics, white goods, automobile, other category high-value products that you purchased were inherently defective?” In response, 46% of consumers said they ‘did not find any defects in products purchased’. Breaking down the poll, 6% of consumers say it ‘happened with five or more products’, 14% said it ‘happened with two to four products’, and 30% say it ‘happened with one product’, while 4% could not say anything. “On an aggregate basis, 46% of consumers had one or more products at hand that they purchased in the last two years and was found to be inherently defective,” LocalCircles says. Among the consumers who had a high-value product with inherent defects in the past two years, three in 10 could not find any assistance from the brand, while one consumer in every 10 never even approached the brand and got it repaired locally. The survey findings indicate participating consumers who had a defective high-value product issue in the past two years, and these 3 in 10 either bought a replacement product, got it repaired locally, sold or disposed it, or are still holding on to the defective product. In one such instance, a brand new laptop worth Rs1 lakh with a defective camera purchased from an authorised company distributor can take about four weeks for the consumer to get a replacement after multiple visits by company techs. “The process is extremely unfriendly for the end consumer and is designed to minimise replacements, per the consumer feedback received by LocalCircles. While all this happens, the consumer’s functioning is disrupted without any compensation or a spare device to use from the company,” it added. Passing a verdict in one of such cases, the Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed a local firm to pay compensation for selling a defective product to a consumer for their failure to replace the defective product, despite repeated requests for about six months. LocalCircles says, “In many such cases of laptops or television sets, what ends up happening is most consumers are unable to wait for redressal from the brand warranty or non-warranty process and either get the product repaired locally, which has consequences, or just buy a replacement.” The Union government, via notification, passed the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019 and constituted the CCPA to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers as a class. The CCPA intervenes to prevent consumer detriment arising from unfair trade practices and can also initiate class action, including enforcing a recall, processing refund, and return of products. The CCPA is also empowered to conduct investigations into violations of consumer rights, order recalls of unsafe goods and services, as well as take a suo moto cognisance against brands, where a class of consumers is impacted due to a defective product or inefficient customer service. The CCPA has, in recent months, taken some actions against sellers of non-compliant pressure cookers and helmets as well as against misleading advertisements by penalising them and discontinuing sales and promotions of such products. No wonder as many as 94% of the respondent consumers want the CCPA to start taking suo moto action against brands with many defective product complaints. According to LocalCircles, one of the key concepts that most brands in India fail to understand is the concept of fast and consumer-centric after-sales service. Many complaints are regularly received each month by LocalCircles against many brands selling white goods, appliances, electronics and gadgets. The majority of brands will go to whatever extent possible to deny a replacement to the consumer, even under warranty. Outside warranty service is mostly broken for most brands. In some cases, LocalCircles found that it takes weeks just to acknowledge a consumer complaint. It says, “In many other cases, something as simple as a toll-free number is hard to find for consumers and even after it is found and the consumer approaches it, the customer service agent remains elusive. Then there are the customer service hours and calls received after-hours are just not returned. Many consumers give up on such after-sale services and either get defective products repaired locally, buy a replacement, or live with the defective

1st April 2022: During the past six months, there has been over eight times’ increase in the percentage of consumers concerned about the safety and performance of electric scooters. While the percentage of people planning to buy an electric scooter has declined, many are worried about the vehicle’s safety and performance issues, finds a survey conducted by LocalCircles.  One of the most critical points outlined by consumers on the LocalCircles platform has been the need for a single point regulator for electric scooters, implementing Indian standards for electric scooters, batteries and any other critical assemblies as well as adherence to those standards, robust testing and approval process followed by pilot rollouts.  “Till this is done, many consumers believe, an electric scooter should not be rolled out in the market for consumers to purchase and use,” LocalCircles says in a release. In India, the adoption of electric scooters has expanded to buyers in metro or tier 1 cities and tier 2 towns. However, as several instances of electric scooters malfunctioning and catching fire came to light, consumers from across India raised their concerns on LocalCircles. The problems primarily focus on the safety and performance of these scooters. Concerns have been reported about multiple brands of electric scooters catching fire, which has prompted the Union government to deploy a team of independent experts to probe the numerous recent incidents.  Such incidents have spotlighted the efficiency of lithium-ion batteries fitted in electric vehicles from where the ignition started, and the question on the minds of many consumers is, “Are electric scooters safe?” LocalCircles conducted a survey to understand the current pulse of household consumers on buying an electric scooter, along with any concerns that are preventing them from buying one in the next six months. The survey received more than 11,500 responses from citizens residing in 267 districts of India. According to the survey, about 21% of the respondents are interested in buying electric scooters but are staying on the sidelines due to safety, performance, and infrastructure concerns. While 1% of households have purchased an electric scooter, another 2% are likely to buy one in the next six months. Most electric scooters are priced just above Rs1 lakh in India. Ola’s S1 Pro and Ather’s electric scooter are priced at around Rs1,30,000.  The percentage of consumers concerned about safety and performance of electric scooters has increased by over eight times during the past six months.  In a similar survey conducted in August 2021 by LocalCircles, only 2% of households were concerned about the safety and performance of electric scooters. “This percentage has increased by over eight times in the last six months with 17% of Indian household consumers now losing confidence about the safety and performance of electric scooters,” LocalCircles says. LocalCircles says it will be escalating these findings with the multiple nodal ministries on the subject such that consumer pulse on electric scooters can be considered, as the way forward on them is determined.

8th April 2022: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday held that consumer courts can grant relief to flat purchasers who are aggrieved with delay in handing over of the flat as per the apartment buyers agreement. A bench, headed by justice UU Lalit and comprising justice S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, said: “We have referred to the legal regime under the Consumer Protection Act, only to show that the (National Consumer Disputes Redressal) Commission has the power and jurisdiction to direct return of money under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, if a consumer so chooses. The freedom to choose the necessary relief is of the consumer and it is the duty of the courts to honour it.” Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgement on behalf of the bench, said that a consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission can seek such reliefs as he/she considers appropriate. “A consumer can pray for a refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation. The consumer can also make a prayer for both in the alternative,” he said. The bench noted that the power to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of agreement is within the jurisdiction of the consumer courts. “If a consumer prays for refund of the amount, without an alternative prayer, the Commission will recognise such a right and grant it, of course subject to the merits of the case. If a consumer seeks alternative reliefs, the Commission will consider the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case and will pass appropriate orders as justice demands,” said the bench. The top court made these observations while hear an appeal by Experion Developers Private Limited, which was directed by the Commission to refund an amount of Rs 2,06,41,379 with interest at 9%per annum to the consumer for its failure to deliver possession of the apartment within the time stipulated as per the apartment buyers agreement. Dismissing the appeal filed by the developer, the bench noted that the consumer, in the present case, prayed for the solitary relief for return of the amount paid towards purchase of the apartment without a prayer for alternate relief. “We are of the opinion that the Commission has correctly exercised its power and jurisdiction in passing the above directions for refund of the amount with interest,” said justice Narasimha. The appeal filed by the consumer said that the payment of interest must be from the date of payment of each instalment and the rate of interest must be 24%per annum. “We are of the opinion that for the interest payable on the amount deposited to be restitutionary and also compensatory, interest has to be paid from the date of the deposit of the amounts. The Commission in the order impugned has granted interest from the date of last deposit. We find that this does not amount to restitution,” noted the bench. The bench said the interest on the refund shall be payable from the dates of deposit. “Therefore, the appeal filed by the purchaser deserves to be partly allowed. The interests shall be payable from the dates of such depositsa. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the interest of 9 per cent granted by the Commission is fair and just,” it noted. Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.  Source: Moneylife

New Delhi: In a historical sequence, Karnataka State Consumer Commission It has been held that a manufacturer of a packaged commodity cannot levy two different MRPs on a product of the same quantity and quality in the same geographical area. Upholding the Bengaluru District Commission’s decision against PepsiCo, the state commission has imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on the multinational company. The state commission had recently passed the order after the multinational company challenged the district commission’s order, which had termed the printing of two MRPs for the same product as “unfair trade practice”. The case was originally filed in 2010 by five students of National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru when he was studying “unfair trade practice” under the Consumer Protection Act. Aditya Banwar, who was a student and fought the case in the district commission on behalf of the students, told TOI, “Two students went to a mall and bought different drinks of the same company and of the same quantity – from a shop. One set from the mall and the other from the food court. They brought them to class and showed how the printed MRPs differed. We decided to register a case and we also presented those bottles before the district commission.” In May 2010 two students of NLSIU went to Minister Mal and bought one liter of packaged drinking water, a can of cold drink and 350 ml bottle of lemon drink which cost them Rs. 20, Rs. 50 and Rs. 50 respectively. But when they bought the same goods from World Supermarket, their cost was Rs.15, Rs.25 and Rs.15 respectively. The students had lodged a complaint that there was a violation at the manufacturer’s level. He also cited that there was no warning on the product or bill that a certain similar product was available at a cheaper rate at other retail outlets. The Consumer Commission has held that printing different MRPs for the same material without any change in content or quantity was “nothing but unfair trade practice”. It had directed the company to stop printing different MRPs on the same material sold at different places and also to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation to the complainants. It had also directed him to pay Rs 2,000 for filing the suit. In 2011, the company challenged the order in the state commission and 11 years later, the commission passed the order rejecting the application. The member bench said it did not find any error or omission in the order passed by the district commission and “there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the forum”. “The issue is not the amount of compensation, but the principle that no MNC can take advantage of consumers and indulge in unfair trade practices,” Ashwini Obuleshwho was one of the complainants and currently practices as an advocate in the Karnataka High Court. Banwar hoped that the order would set a precedent for preventing manufacturers from printing different MPRs on the same product. “After the government cracked down on sellers charging more than the MRP, manufacturers were printing different prices for the same product to circumvent legal provisions. Now this too should be stopped,” he said. Source: Times Of India