The State IT secretary has passed 78 orders in respect of adjudication of disputes including cases of phishing and cyber cafes not adhering to rules under the IT Act.
While the pace of disposal of cases look promising, it has been gloomy for bank customers who approached the IT department hoping to get compensation.
In all the applications related to phishing, the IT adjudicator has disposed of the cases in favour of the banks.
Mr Rajendra Prasad Yadav, a software professional, who lost Rs 4.14 lakh to phishing, received the copy of the order from the IT department recently informing him that his complaint was ‘not sustainable’. The IT Adjudicator has also seconded the opinion of the bank that the onus would be on the customer to prove that he has not revealed details of his online account to anyone.
Mr Yadav’s bank account was hacked and several unauthorized transactions were made in 2010. The fraud was such that the money withdrawn from Mr Yadav’s account was paid to the credit of the same bank at a different branch. Two credit card-holders, issued by the same bank, allegedly siphoned off his money from the bank account.
The IT Adjudicator, in the order on January 17, held that “Section 43 of IT Act is not applicable to a body or corporate such as the respondent (bank), after the IT Act amendment in 2008 came into force”. The term used in Section 43 of the Act is “person” and the IT Adjudicator has stated that a body or corporate, such as a bank, does not come under the definition of “person”.
“This order, which has come more than a year after my application, is a clear attempt to discourage victims of phishing from approaching the department for compensation. I will definitely move an appeal before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT).
I don’t understand how a customer is expected to identify the person responsible when the contention is that the bank is responsible,’’ Mr Yadav contended.
The IT Adjudicator has passed a similar order in which the complainant is also not a ‘person’. The application by Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd, which has an office Mahadevapura, has also been dismissed based on the same ground that the bank was not a person to claim compensation under the IT Act.
The company had lost Rs 39 lakh in phishing and the order was passed on December 27.
“The term ‘person’ used in Section 43 of the Act is applicable to both natural persons and legal persons. The contention of the banks in phishing cases that the complainants have wrongly invoked Section 43 seeking adjudication and compensation under Section 46 of the IT Act is not justifiable”, a cyber law expert said.
