Jago Grahak Jago

While allowing a home-buyer to retain money already received from a builder only because of the particular circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court reiterated that it disapproves of consumer forums awarding compound interest in these matters while exercising jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. In an order last week, the bench of justice Dinesh Maheshwari and justice Sanjay Kumar says, “…even when we may not find fault with the stance of the respondent (homebuyer) in refusing to accept such an offer of a refund, particularly when she was desirous of the flats rather than money refund, the appellants (builder) cannot be saddled with any liability to pay compound interest over the amount offered by them beyond the date of their offer.” “The consumer fora have failed to consider that when the appellants had indeed offered to pay the money and sent the cheque (of Rs10.68 lakh) on 8 November 2005, it would be bringing about negative imbalance if such an effort on the part of the appellants was to be ignored altogether and compounding of interest was continued beyond 8 November 2005,” the bench says. The apex court observed that when the amount payable by the builder with reference to the principal and propositions is calculated, in its view, it does not exceed Rs2.48 crore together with accrued interest, which the home-buyer has already received. “Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of this case, as an extraordinary measure, we propose to allow the respondent to retain the amount so received.” The case related to Anita Merchant, who in 1989 was a non-resident Indian (NRI) and booked three flats in a residential project Siddharth Shila Apartments, launched in Vaishali in Uttar Pradesh by Suneja Towers Pvt Ltd, headed by KL Suneja. She was allotted three flats, one costing Rs7.37 lakh and the other two at Rs7.35 lakh. As per the agreement, the total cost was payable by Ms Merchant in 12 instalments. However, she did not make the remaining payments after paying up to the sixth instalment. In October 2005, Ms Merchant issued a notice to Suneja Towers alleging that even after 16 years, the builder had kept the allottees waiting, despite receiving more than 60% of the total cost of the flats. She offered to pay the balance, provided that Suneja Towers clarified when the construction would be completed and she would get possession of her flats. In its response, Suneja Towers stated that it was a provisional allotment and no agreement was executed between the builder and the home-buyer, and since Ms Merchant defaulted in payment, the allotment has been cancelled. Suneja Towers offered to refund Rs10.68 lakh through cheque on 8 November 2005. Ms Merchant, however, returned the cheque and sent a rejoinder to the builder. Ms Merchant then filed a civil suit, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. She then filed a complaint before the district consumer forum. However, the district forum rejected her complaint, stating, “Ms Merchant tried to avail the services of Sujena Towers for commercial purpose… thus she does not fall within the category of consumer…” The home-buyer then approached the state commission. While setting aside the order passed by the district forum, the state commission held that the complaints were maintainable by law. It observed that Ms Merchant paid 60% of the total sale consideration. “However, possession of the flats booked by her was not handed over even after the expiry of the agreed period. Having opted for the construction-linked plan, the buyer was to make payment of the balance amount on delivery of possession and the allegation of her being in default was to be rejected because, on inspection of the site, construction was not found as per schedule.” The state commission found the case of Ms Merchant akin to that of Dr Manjeet Kaur Monga and when the units in question had already been sold, found it just and proper to direct the present appellants to refund the deposited amount together with compound interest at 14%pa (per annum) from the date of deposit. Suneja Towers challenged the decision before the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC). However, the appeal was dismissed. It says, “…in this case, the state commission had duly followed the dictum of the Supreme Court in Dr Monga’s case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the findings of the state commission are perverse or without jurisdiction. We found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present revision petitions have no merit, and the same are dismissed.” Suneja Towers then filed an appeal before the apex court. After hearing both sides, the bench observed that in her original complaint, Ms Merchant did not make any prayer for an award of compound interest; instead, her prayer had essentially been for directions to the appellants to deliver the flats and to award damages. She sought a simple interest at 18%pa. Citing the case of Dr Monga, the home-buyer for the first time claimed compound interest only before the state commission. The SC observed that the state commission did not elaborate much on the principles governing its powers and those governing awarding compound interest and rather considered the decision in Dr Monga’s case to be decisive of the matter. The apex court delved upon several judgements related to builders or developers and home-buyers and found, in most cases, the compensation for delayed delivery of possession and even in the cases where the builder was not delivering possession or not being taken by the purchaser for a valid reason, the award of compensation was restricted to the refund with a simple interest in the range of 6%pa to 9%pa. The bench stated that while awarding compensation and/or punitive damages, the concerned (consumer) forum can take all the relevant factors into account and award such amount as deemed fit and necessary but “ordinarily, in the matters of money refund, awarding of compound interest as a measure of punitive damages is not envisaged.” “A shortcut of awarding compound interest

The Intelligence Fusion & Strategic Operations (IFSO) unit of Delhi Police has arrested five cyber criminals for cheating 22 Max Insurance policy holders to the tune of Rs 2.38 crore, an official said. The official said that the gang, including two ex-employees of Max Insurance company, was allegedly involved in fraudulent withdrawal of unclaimed money of Max Life Insurance policy holders through bank accounts opened using forged documents. The accused have been identified as Prem Parkash (37), Chandan Jain (41), Sujeet Kumar Mishra (41), Rohit Kumar Aggarwal (28), and Vikas (30). Aggarwal, a former senior executive at Max Life Insurance Co., used his access to policyholders’ data to identify those with unclaimed surrendered and maturity amounts. He then shared these details with Mishra, another employee at the company, who passed them on to Jain. Jain, in turn, passed the information to Prakash, who opened bank accounts in the names of these policyholders. Meanwhile, Max Life Insurance said in a statement: “At Max Life Insurance, we believe in conducting business with the highest standards of ethics and integrity. We have zero tolerance for any unethical and fraudulent practices that compromise our customers’ interest and put Max Life’s reputation at risk. During our internal enquiry, we discovered that the implicated individuals had indulged in unethical practices. “We had taken strict action against employee involved and terminated their employment with immediate effect. The FIR was registered on complaint by Max Life only. We are extending the necessary support to aid ongoing investigations to ensure justice is met. We remain resolute in delivering the best services with necessary fraud control measures that our customers expect from us.” According to the police, the matter came to light after a case was registered under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code at the Special Cell police station on the complaint of Max Life Insurance, wherein it was alleged that a sum of Rs 51 lakh related to surrendered/maturity amount of two Max policyholders – Ashutosh Joshi and Abdul Hye Choudhary – had been fraudulently received by unknown persons whose requests for refund were processed through their ex-employees. It was later discovered by the company that Choudhary had expired on March 13, 2018 and no such request was made on his behalf. “During inquiry, further documents and information shared by the company were examined and it was revealed that around Rs 2.38 crore pertaining to 37 policies of 22 Max Life Insurance policyholders got refunded fraudulently,” said Deputy Commissioner of Police (IFSO), Prashant P. Gautam. The police then collected relevant account-related documents from the banks which revealed that several accounts were opened in Equitas Small Finance Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bandhan Bank, Yes Bank, IDBI Bank and Jana Small Finance Bank in the names of policyholders. “Many of these accounts were opened digitally using the e-Aadhaar authentication process. It was also found that most of the money received in these accounts was transferred to accounts in the name of Rinku Sales, whose proprietor was Prem Prakash, having the address of Kabir Nagar, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi,” said the DCP. However, the said address was not traceable. “Prem Prakash was nabbed from near Burari and on the basis of his interrogation, five more persons were also arrested subsequently,” Gautam said. The officer said that Prakash lured his known persons and others, mostly poor people residing in jhuggis near Rana Pratap Bagh, and took them to the Aadhaar Centre to get their names/addresses changed to the names and addresses of the policyholders. “Vikas, who worked at the Aadhaar Centre, got these changes updated without collecting any relevant documents against Rs 1,000-1,500 per case. Many of these accounts were opened digitally using the e-Aadhaar authentication process,” the officer said. Aggarwal used to fill up the NEFT mandate forms using the signature of the policy holders and sent them along with scanned copies of cheque/passbooks through his official email ID to the data entry team of the company to initiate the refund process. “The refund amount was received in the bank accounts opened in the names of policyholders from where most of it was transferred to the bank accounts of Rinku Sales. From the account of Rinku Sales, the amount was withdrawn in cash and shared by the accused persons,” the officer said. The police have also recovered 39 mobile phones, 55 PAN cards, 33 Aadhaar cards, 32 voter ID cards, 46 debit cards, 73 cheque books/passbooks, six point of sale machines, and 10 rubber stamps. Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

Expressing concern over increasing unclaimed deposits with banks, companies, mutual funds and insurers, finance minister (FM) Nirmala Sitharaman advised sector regulators to conduct a special drive to settle unclaimed deposits and claims. The value of unclaimed deposits in India is estimated to be over Rs90,000 crore, out of which the total unclaimed deposits transferred to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) by public sector banks (PSBs) was Rs35,012 crore as of February 2023. As reported by Moneylife, the total amount of unclaimed deposits was over Rs82,000 crore as of July 2021. Speaking at the 27th meeting of the financial stability and development council (FSDC), Ms Sitharaman says, “Regulators should conduct a special drive to facilitate the settlement of unclaimed deposits and claims in the financial sector across all segments, such as banking deposits, shares and dividends, mutual funds, and insurance.”  Unclaimed funds of the public get transferred to government-owned funds like RBI’s Depositor’s Education and Awareness Fund (DEAF), Investor’s Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) and Senior Citizen’s Welfare Fund (SCWF) on the grounds that the legal heirs or nominees did not claim them. A July 2021 report from Economic Times (ET) has estimated total unclaimed deposits at over Rs82,000 crore. It includes Rs26,497 crore in the provident fund (PF) accounts, Rs18,381 crore in inactive or dormant bank accounts, excluding Rs4,820 crore in matured fixed deposits (FDs), Rs17,880 crore in mutual funds, Rs15,167 crore in life insurance policies, and Rs4,100 crore in dividends. As per these figures, as of July 2021, total unclaimed deposits were over Rs82,000 crore. Considering a bank interest rate of 6%, these funds would have increased to around Rs92,000 crore in two years. Moneylife has repeatedly written about the difficulty in having bank accounts unfrozen and made operative again. The constant accretion to DEAF, despite stringent KYC requirements, is testimony to the callousness of a system that makes it difficult for funds to be transferred to rightful claimants. In the case of death, each bank makes up its own rules to transfer funds (‘Zindagi ke baad bhi’: COVID and the Worries about Transmission and Succession); some even arm-twist heirs to park it in fixed deposits with the same banks. Apart from the red-tape involved in obtaining succession certificates, some banks, in addition to succession certificates, demand two sureties from unrelated persons—which is a completely unreasonable demand. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) mandates that all insurers transfer all policyholders’ money lying unclaimed for over 10 years to SCWF of the government set up in 2015. Unclaimed deposits under small savings, public provident fund (PPF), employee provident fund (EPF), all post-office savings accounts, senior citizens’ savings scheme accounts, Indira Vikas Patra and Kisan Vikas Patras are also transferred to the SCWF. Sucheta Dalal, managing editor of Moneylife and founder-trustee of Moneylife Foundation, had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court on making public on a centralised platform details of unclaimed money of investors and depositors taken by various regulators and which remains inaccessible to rightful legal heirs. In response to the petition, the RBI submitted that, during FY21-22, the depositors’ DEAF refunded Rs505.51 crore of 187,975 claimants. According to RBI, settling disputed claims by banks may involve adjudication of facts and appreciation of evidence which are normally subject matters of the court and could lead to avoidable litigation involving the banks, which is not in the interest of the banks and their depositors. Last month, RBI governor Shaktikanta Das announced the development of a common web portal to search for unclaimed deposits. At present, the depositors or beneficiaries of unclaimed bank deposits of 10 years or more have to go through the websites of multiple banks to locate such deposits, Mr Das said. “Now, in order to improve and widen the access of depositors and beneficiaries to information on such unclaimed deposits, it has been decided to develop a web portal to enable search across multiple banks for possible unclaimed deposits. This will help depositors and beneficiaries in getting back unclaimed deposits,” he added. (Read: RBI To Develop a Centralised Portal To Search Unclaimed Deposits) IEPF, which holds monies from the unclaimed dividend account that remains unpaid or unclaimed for seven years, offers a search facility on its website, operated under the ministry of corporate affairs (MCA-21). Further, IEPF has relaxed certain requirements, including advanced receipt, succession certificate or probate of a will (relaxed for a claim of Rs5 lakh for physical and demat shares). It also allowed self-attestation by the claimant instead of notarised documents while relaxing the requirement of affidavits and surety. As of 31 January 2023, IEPF processed 74,396 claims and transferred dividends worth Rs35.18 crore to claimants. It also transferred 2.29mn (million) shares to the claimants. Last month, terming the issue of unclaimed deposits as ‘very large’, the apex court allowed senior counsel Prashant Bhushan to file a combined rejoinder in the PIL. During the hearing, Justice PS Narasimha mentioned that “This issue is very large. It is being considered in detail.” The PIL urges developing a centralised online database under the control of RBI that will provide information about the deceased account holder, including such details as the name, address and last date of transaction by the deceased account holder. Further, it should be mandatory for banks to inform RBI about the inoperative or dormant bank accounts, and this exercise should be repeated after an interval of nine to 12 months. Source: Timesofindia.com

Meta-owned WhatsApp on Thursday said it has taken stern action on the growing menace of International scam calls in India, after the government took cognisance of the issue and announced to send a notice to the platform over the issue. The platform, which has over 500 million users in the country, said it has ramped up its artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems to bring down such incidents significantly. “Our new enforcement will reduce the current calling rate by at least 50 per cent and we expect to be able to control the current incidence effectively. We will continue to work relentlessly towards ensuring a safe experience for our users,” a company spokesperson said in a statement. Earlier in the day, Minister of State for Electronics and IT, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, said that the IT Ministry will send a notice to WhatsApp on the issue of spam calls from unknown international numbers, stressing that social media platforms are responsible for ensuring the safety and trust of users. These spam calls with international numbers, mostly from African and Southeast Asian countries, along with fake messages from unknown users, flooded WhatsApp users in India. The spam calls showed country codes of Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Ethiopia, among others. Most of these calls started with +251 (Ethiopia), +62 (Indonesia), +254 (Kenya), +84 (Vietnam) and other countries. WhatsApp said that international scam calls are a new way that bad actors have recently adopted. By giving a missed call, they lead curious users to call or message back only to get scammed. “We continue to provide several safety tools within WhatsApp like Block and Report, consistently build user safety education and awareness, as well as, proactively weed out bad-actors from our platform. However, bad actors find different ways to scam users,” the company spokesperson noted. Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

Accepting the evidence submitted by a complainant to substantiate her compensation claim, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) decided to keep its Rs2 crore compensation intact. NCDRC was hearing afresh the case remitted by the Supreme Court. While upholding a deficiency in service as hair was important in a woman’s life, the Supreme Court in February this year remanded the case to NCDRC to compute the damages afresh. NCDRC, in this case, has awarded Rs2 crore as damages to the complainant. In the February order, a bench of justice Aniruddha Bose and justice Vikram Nath had said, “…we are left with no option but to set aside the order of NCDRC awarding Rs2 crore as compensation for loss of income, mental breakdown and trauma and pain and suffering. We remit the matter to the NCDRC to give an opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence with respect to her claim of Rs3 crore.” “In the absence of any material with regard to her existing job, the emoluments received by her, any past, present or future assignments in modelling which the respondent was likely to get or even the interview letter for which the respondent alleges she had gone to the saloon to make herself presentable, it would be difficult to quantify or assess the compensation under these heads. What could be quantified was compensation under the head of pain, suffering and trauma. However, an amount of Rs2 crore would be extremely excessive and disproportionate. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the NCDRC fell in error by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs2 crore without there being any material to substantiate and support the same or which could have helped the NCDRC to quantify the compensation,” it says. Aashna Roy had filed the complaint with NCDRC alleging wrong hair treatment on two occasions at the saloon of Hotel ITC Maurya in New Delhi. After not receiving a proper response from the manager and senior executives of ITC Maurya, she approached NCDRC, alleging deficiency in service, seeking a written apology from the management as also compensation of Rs3 crore for harassment, humiliation, mental trauma, loss of career, loss of income and loss of future prospects. Hearing the matter afresh as per direction from the apex court, NCDRC noted that Ms Roy had submitted various emails offering a higher post and job to her, certificates and letters certifying that she was modelling for various hair care products during the period from 2015 to 2018. “Having gone through the evidence led by Ms Roy in support of her claim, there cannot be any doubt that she was doing modelling for the hair-care products and as such to maintain the hairstyle and taking care of her hair was crucial for her high profile and bright career of modelling,” the bench of justice RK Agrawal (president) and Dr SM Kantikar (member) of NCDRC noted. In its order last week, the Commission says, “….we are of the view that Ms Roy has sufficiently substantiated her claim for compensation by leading the cogent evidence. However, having carefully considered all the submissions of Ms Roy and evidence led by her, in our view, no case has been made out by her for enhancement of the claim. Taking into consideration the various materials/documents filed by Ms Roy, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if she is awarded Rs2 crore as compensation. We accordingly award Rs2 crore as compensation. However, since a long time has passed from the date of passing of our earlier order dated 21 September 2021, in our view, Ms Roy is entitled to compensation by way of interest.” NCDRC asked Hotel ITC Maurya to pay, within six weeks, Rs2 crore to Ms Roy along with interest at 9%pa (per annum) from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. ,19 July 2018 until payment.  During the previous hearing, NCDRC recorded a finding that the length of Ms Roy’s hair had been shortened contrary to her instructions. It also recorded a finding that because of faulty hair styling, the looks of Ms Roy may have changed. NCDRC also recorded a finding that there was negligence on the part of the saloon in providing the hair treatment to the respondent and also damage caused in the scalp. NCDRC after that proceeded to deal with the quantification of the compensation. NCDRC further recorded that Ms Roy was a model for hair products and because of her long hair she had been a model for VLCC and Pantene. “On account of the deficiency in service and the damage caused to her hair styling, she lost her expected assignments and suffered a huge loss which completely changed her lifestyle and shattered her dream to be a top model,” NCDRC observed. While awarding a compensation of Rs2 crore, NCDRC noted that “Ms Roy underwent severe mental breakdown and trauma due to the negligence in the services provided to her and as a result of which she also lost her job. She also suffered burning sensation and irritation in her scalp.” Hotel ITC Maurya challenged the NCDRC decision before the apex court. The SC noted, “The NCDRC, based upon the evidence led which included the affidavits, photographs, CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats and other material on record, came to the conclusion that there was a deficiency in service. We are not inclined to interfere with the said finding regarding deficiency in service as the same is based upon an appreciation of evidence and thus would be a pure question of fact.”  However, the apex court says it did not find any reference or discussion on any material evidence to quantify the compensation of Rs2 crore. The bench repeatedly asked Ms Roy to share evidence or records to show her expected loss. However, she could not provide any evidence. The bench of justice Bose and justice Nath offered Ms Roy to engage a counsel, which she denied. She was also offered free legal

Setting aside an order passed by the state commission, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) clarified that assessment of the academic and overall performance, including ‘conduct and character’ of a student, in an educational institution made by the faculty as part of its working in the ordinary course is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In an order, the bench of Dinesh Singh (presiding member) and justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee (member) says, “…we do not at all agree with the state commission’s observation in its order that ‘the opposite party has not only caused deficiency of service but also followed unfair trade practice against the complainant’. The evaluation or assessment of a student’s performance by the faculty of an academic institution imparting a degree in medicine can by no stretch of imagination have similitude with a trader or service provider selling goods or providing services. ‘Deficiency in service’ or ‘unfair trade practice’ by a trader or service provider in respect of ‘goods’ or ‘services’ as are within the purview of the consumer protection act are not at all relevant or related or applicable to the evaluation or assessment of a student’s academic and overall performance including ‘conduct and character’.” Kanyakumari-based Shreem Mookambika Institute of Medical Sciences (SMIMS) had filed the appeal before NCDRC challenging an order passed by the Kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission. Tripur-based V Balasundar Raj was pursuing his bachelor of medicine, and bachelor of surgery (MBBS) degree from SMIMS. After completing the curriculum, he was undertaking his compulsory rotating resident internship (CRRI). He wanted his resident internship transferred to Christian Medical College (CMC) at Vellore from SMIMS. However, SMIMS refused the transfer because the rules did not allow it. Mr Balasundar approached the Kerala High Court (HC) which decided in his favour. In compliance with the HC’s 31 January 2013 order, the Institute issued a no-objection certificate (NOC) on 6 March 2013 and a transfer certificate (TC) on 4 February 2013 to enable Mr Balasundar to transfer his internship to CMC Vellore. The transfer of internship took place. In the TC, SMIMS evaluated his ‘conduct and character’ as ‘not satisfactory’. Mr Balasundar challenged this evaluation before the Kerala state commission. In an order on 14 August 2019, the state commission directed SMIMS to issue another TC to Mr Balasundar, stating that his ‘conduct and character’ is ‘satisfactory’ and to pay him a compensation of Rs20 lakh along with Rs10,000 as litigation expenses within one month. SMIMS then approached NCDRC. Senior counsel RP Bhat, representing the Institute, submitted that the conduct and character of the student were assessed as not satisfactory as it was the fair opinion of the faculty. He also contended that the assessment of the academic and overall performance, including the ‘conduct and character’ of a student by a medical institution imparting a degree in medicine, is beyond the scope of a consumer protection forum. Even otherwise, institutions rendering education—except coaching institutions—are not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, Mr Bhat submitted. Advocate Ritesh Khare, representing Mr Balasundar, contended that the complainant’s ‘conduct and character’ was assessed as ‘not satisfactory’ only because he had approached the HC and obtained an order in his favour. Senior counsel Bhat, in his rebuttal, submitted that there is no evidence at all to show that the Institute was biased just because Mr Balasundar had approached the HC. “Seeking legal remedy was his lawful right, and there can hardly be any reason for bias or any reason to take umbrage on that count. The state commission appears to have passed its order on surmises and conjunctures without a shred of evidence having a basis, in fact, to show that the institute was biased. The ‘not satisfactory’ assessment was the fair, unbiased opinion of the institute’s faculty taken in the normal course of its working,” he stated. After hearing both sides, NCDRC bench says it finds merit in the submission of Mr Bhat that there is no evidence to support the allegation of bias on the part of the Institute in assessing Mr Balasundar’s ‘conduct and character’ as ‘not satisfactory’. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the state commission, NCDRC directed the registry to immediately send to all parties and upload a copy of the order on its website. (First Appeal No1900 of 2019  Date: 25 April 2023) Source:moneylife.in

Google security teams have discovered 18 zero-day vulnerabilities in Samsung Exynos chips used in several top Android smartphones and wearables that may put those devices at risk. Google’s Project Zero head Tim Willis said in a blog post that four most severe of these vulnerabilities “allowed for Internet-to-baseband remote code execution”. Tests conducted by Project Zero confirmed that those four vulnerabilities allow an attacker to remotely compromise a phone at the baseband level with no user interaction, and require only that the attacker know the victim’s phone number. With limited additional research and development, “we believe that skilled attackers would be able to quickly create an operational exploit to compromise affected devices silently and remotely”, said Google security researchers. “Until security updates are available, users who wish to protect themselves from the baseband remote code execution vulnerabilities in Samsung’s Exynos chipsets can turn off Wi-Fi calling and Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) in their device settings,” said Willis. Turning off these settings will remove the exploitation risk of these vulnerabilities, he added. The affected mobile devices are from Samsung, Vivo, Google (Pixel 6 and Pixel 7 series); any wearables that use the Exynos W920 chipset; and any vehicles that use the Exynos Auto T5123 chipset. Google expects that patch timelines will vary per manufacturer, and affected Pixel devices have already received a fix. “As always, we encourage end users to update their devices as soon as possible, to ensure that they are running the latest builds that fix both disclosed and undisclosed security vulnerabilities,” said Google. Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

As I have repeatedly warned in this column, corporates, especially those in the finance and technology sectors, who want to find ways for rapid on-boarding of customers, lobbied hard to push the linking of Aadhaar to just about every identity, benefit and even returns on our own income. Successive governments gave in to these corporates and created an ‘expressway’ for using Aadhaar for a host of purposes never mentioned or envisaged initially. People have forgotten that Aadhaar was created primarily to provide an identity (ID) to economically backward people, migrants and nomads who did not have any ID. The creators, in their hurry to launch it, ignored aspects of security, privacy, ease of updation, and issues with biometrics that continue to afflict the Aadhaar ecosystem. Add to this, the problems such as wrong data entry, unreadable biometrics and the need for frequent updation of addresses, especially by younger people who change jobs often, and you realise the many issues with asking for Aadhaar everywhere. The worst sufferers are the poor and less literate. You would see hapless people standing in queues at Aadhaar service centres to pay money and rectify mistakes in their Aadhaar documents. In the process, some of them have their personal details stolen and sold by those who offer the service. Later in this column, I will also tell you what would happen if you install a mobile app shared or downloaded from anywhere other than the official Playstore of Google. Several instances have come to light where such fake gaming or loan apps are found stealing confidential data and emptying users’ bank accounts. Online Financial Fraud Using AePS The over-dependence on a flawed Aadhaar system continues to cause difficulties for people. A few days ago, the national cyber crime reporting portal of the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) warned about online financial fraud using the Aadhaar-enabled payment system (AePS) without the need for a one-time passcode (OTP). A few months ago, I met a senior citizen who had two bank accounts in the same bank but in different cities. She wanted to close one account and went to the bank branch in that city. However, the branch was too crowded. In the meantime, she considered withdrawing some money from her bank account before closing. But even that counter had several people standing in a long queue. Someone told her that she could withdraw money using the service offered by a banking correspondent sitting outside the branch. She went there, and after much effort, her thumb impression was recorded for Aadhaar authentication, and she received the money. The serious part is that this money was withdrawn from her bank account in another city, not the one she wanted to close. This raises a serious question about why and how the money was withdrawn from an account whose details she never shared with the banking correspondent. One possible explanation is that the money was withdrawn from the account linked with Aadhaar. However, the senior citizen had linked her Aadhaar with both accounts. Yet, money from her account was withdrawn from only one account whose details she never shared with the banking correspondent. This is a flaw in Aadhaar systems which takes into account only the recently linked bank account as valid for transactions. AePS enables a person to withdraw money from their bank account using a local business correspondent anywhere in the country, and this also makes it easy to cheat people. Last year in August, we wrote about how, during the scrutiny of suspicious bank accounts, HDFC Bank Ltd discovered that 33 savings accounts were opened with the photographs of just two individuals, while the name in each account was different. The Bank filed a complaint with the IFSO (Intelligence Fusion and Strategic Operations) unit of Delhi police which busted a gang engaged in creating fake documents, especially Aadhaar cards and opening bank accounts. According to the police, the fraudsters used silicon fingerprints and printouts of the iris scan of the authorised agent to log in to the UIDAI database. “Whenever any illiterate came to them for any Aadhaar updation, Navneet Prajapati captured the biometrics of that person but updated the photograph and address as suitable to him.” The warning issued by the national cybercrime portal also cautions about the misuse of Aadhaar biometrics. It advises Aadhaar-holders to lock their biometrics on the official site of UIDAI or the Aadhaar app. Remember, once your biometrics are locked, you cannot use them again for authentication without unlocking them. This may pose a different kind of issue for Aadhaar holders. So, think twice before enabling or disabling the biometrics of your Aadhaar. A few days ago, the Telangana police suggested that one should disable the biometric link from Aadhaar if the holder has lost money in an AePS fraud. It asked people not to share Aadhaar details with anyone and to be aware of fraudulent transactions carried out using fake biometrics. The main reason for AePS fraud using Aadhaar biometrics is the ease with which fraudsters can create clones of fingerprints. Cloning of fingerprints is very easy; several video tutorials are readily available online and Moneylife Foundation even demonstrated it at a webinar in October 2016! Fake Apps There are hundreds of apps available on Google Playstore. Many Android application package (.apk) files are readily available for download at several unofficial portals. The biggest issue with all of these apps downloaded from unofficial places is they collect all data and information available on the device and send it to the fraudsters hiding in the garb of app developers. In the case of bogus loan apps, if the borrower does not pay the loan on time, the app company badgers the borrowers’ contacts, including sending messages for payment, as well as abusive and defamatory messages and even morphed nude images of the person. They also use social media like WhatsApp to shame borrowers over not repaying a loan. Source: moneylife.in.

Dismissing a complaint, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) ruled that the act of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) inviting quotations from banks seeking higher interest rates for its term deposits does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. In this case, JNPT had also filed a case with the central bureau of investigation (CBI) against Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) for transferring Rs180 crore to one Padmavati International. JNPT had deposited the money with OBC as a term deposit in two tranches. In an order, the bench of justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (presiding member) and Dr Inder Jit Singh (member) says, “…transactions between the complainant (JNPT) and the opposite party (OBC) were business to business transactions with motive to earn profit and for commercial purpose. The complainant falls within the exclusion clause of the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, and the complaint on its behalf is not maintainable.” The bench observed that in 2014, JNPT invited quotations from various banks seeking interest rates for its term deposit of Rs100 crore to Rs120 crore for two years. OBC offered an interest of 9.67% per annum (pa), the highest among other banks. On 12 February 2014, JNPT transferred Rs110 crore as a term deposit with OBC for two years with an interest of 9.67% compounded quarterly. Again on 15 February 2014, JNPT invited quotations from banks for a term deposit of Rs60 crore to Rs70 crore. OBC offered an interest rate of 9.75%pa, which was again the highest compared to other banks. On 17 February 2014, JNPT transferred Rs70 crore to OBC as a term deposit. JNPT sent emails to OBC seeking term deposit receipts (TDRs) for its two deposits of Rs110 crore and Rs70 crore. However, it did not receive the TDRs from OBC for the two deposits. JNPT alleged OBC ‘was making some excuse for not issuing TDRs’. After escalating the complaint with the general manager of OBC, the Trust learned that the amount of its term deposits had been transferred to the current account of Padmavati International. JNPT then filed a complaint in CBI. OBC contended that JNPT’s finance manager B Vasudeva Rao handed over the original letter dated 12 February 2014 to the Trust’s assistant technician Atmaram P Thakur, for creating a TDR of Rs110 crore for one year. “This original letter dated 12 February 2014 is now untraceable anywhere, which shows that misappropriation was done in connivance and active involvement of the employee of the JNPT.” “In spite of the fact that JNPT did not receive TDR of the money transferred on 12 February 2014, it again transferred Rs70 crore on 17 February 2014, further strengthening the connivance of the employees of JNPT. The complainant (JNPT) did not insist for issue of TDRs immediately and is guilty of contributory negligence. Transfer of money in the account of Padmavati International was at the behest of JNPT,” OBC contended. OBC also requested NCDRC to dismiss the complaint as JNPT is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. Referring to NCDRC’s judgement in Synco Textiles Pvt Ltd vs Greaves Colton & Company Ltd, the bench stated the expression ‘for any commercial purpose’ are wide enough to take in all cases, where goods are purchased for being used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. “…the intension of the Parliament must be understood to be to exclude from the scope of the expression ‘consumer’ any person who buys goods for the purposes of their being used in any activity engaged on a large scale for the purposes of making profit. The Parliament wanted to exclude from the scope of the definition not merely persons who obtains goods for resale but also those who purchase goods with a view of using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purposes of earning profit,” NCDRC says. In January 2019, the enforcement directorate (ED) attached Rs41.87 crore lying in bank accounts in Hong Kong of some shell companies in connection with the JNPT-OBC fraud case. According to the ED, one Rajesh Bangawala conspired with bank officials and fraudulently transferred Rs180 crore deposited by the JNPT to Padmavati International using forged documents. The agency recovered and returned Rs109 crore to JNPT. (Consumer Case No1564 of 2016 Date: 22 March 2016) Source: moneylife.in

Numerous supplement companies, including Unilever’s Nutrafol, Viviscal, Zenwise and NutraPro, and other hair product companies, such as Vegamour, advertise their products as able to grow hair and prevent hair loss, in violation of FDA and FTC law. The following are some examples: Pursuant to the FDA, claims that a product can stimulate hair growth and prevent, reduce or treat hair loss are drug claims requiring FDA approval, which these companies do not have. In fact, the only products that have been approved by the FDA to increase hair growth and treat hair loss are finasteride (Propecia) and minoxidil (Rogaine). Further, pursuant to the FTC, such hair loss and growth claims must be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence in the form of “tests, analyses, research, or studies that (1) have been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by experts in the relevant disease, condition, or function to which the representation relates; and (2) are generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.” What does this mean? Generally, the type of substantiation that experts would require for health benefit claims are randomized, controlled human clinical trials (RCTs). Many wellness companies that make health benefit claims do not have this level of scientific support. Even in cases where companies purport to have clinical trials or studies substantiating their advertising claims, the studies frequently have major flaws that prevent them from properly supporting the claims at issue. Some companies also use positive consumer testimonials in their marketing, but such endorsements do not amount to clinical proof that the products work (and can also present other deceptive marketing issues). What all this means is that consumers presented with hair growth and hair loss prevention ads should exercise caution and be aware that the FDA does not approve supplements for safety or effectiveness. Consumers should also always conduct their own independent research before purchasing such products, as well as consult with their health care provider. In addition, some hair loss companies have also used influencers to promote products on social media without ensuring the influencers properly disclose their material connection to the company or that the promotional posts are ads. This violates FTC law. TINA.org has taken steps to eradicate such deception in the hair growth industry by filing a complaint with the FTC and FDA regarding one company’s numerous violations of law, as well as notifying 25 other hair product companies of the law as it pertains to hair growth and hair loss prevention claims. To learn about those efforts, click here and here. Consumers are also encouraged to submit any questionable hair growth promotions to TINA.org here. Courtesy: TruthInAdvertising.org