Direct Paytm To Compensate Doctor Who Lost Rs 3 Lakh To Hackers, HC Tells RBI | News from India

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court ordered the RBI ask Paytm to compensate a doctor who lost Rs 3 lakh to hacking through digital payment gateway, issuing the directive while deploring the tendency of one institution after another to kick the can along the way when scammed customers ask a compensation.
“Although the public is encouraged to use Paytm, Google Pay, Amazon Payetc., the customer is forced to run from one pillar to another in case he is affected due to third party violations or fraudulent interventions,” the court said.
The order has been issued to the RBI as Paytm is a private entity and such a directive cannot be issued pursuant to a written petition. The HC made it clear that the portal is required to protect its customers.
“What is surprising is that even when the RBI has issued general guidelines for both banks and prepaid payment instruments, each institution shifts the blame to the other and no one has had a concrete idea of ​​who should bear the loss suffered by the petitioner, for none of her mistakes,” said the HC, referring to the doctor, R Pavithra.
Pavithra’s banker, City Union Bank, claimed the money was stolen from her Paytm account and the bank cannot be held responsible. Transactions declared by Paytm on the platform are “very secure” and will not go through without the customer knowing or sharing their account details.
The RBI stressed that it “does not interfere” in transactions between regulated entities and their clients.
The HC expressed disappointment that all institutions were dumping the buck. He stressed that the appellant should not suffer while specifying that he promptly filed a complaint with his bank which, in turn, sent it to Paytm.
“According to RBI circulars, Paytm had to establish within 90 days of the incident that the petitioner was responsible for the loss. However, it did not. Therefore, according to RBI guidelines, the amount had to be repaid to the customer regardless of whether the negligence whether on his part or not,” the HC said.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GreenLeaf Tw2sl