Question marks loom on who will foot the final bill incaseofafraud

MUMBAI: Even as investigations continue and legislations are invoked, it could be a difficult task to fix accountability as the onus of proving negligence is on the user, and in most cases it is difficult to keep records.

According to Pavan Duggal, cyber law expert and advocate with Supreme Court: “Under existing laws, there is the provision to fix accountability for negligence. Banks are categorised as intermediaries and under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, they can be held liable if they are found to be negligent in carrying out due diligence.”

As in most cases, legislations are not found limiting, but it is more to do with the execution of the laws. “Under section 43A of the same Act, if banks are found to be negligent in providing a reasonable system of security, then they shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation,” said Duggal. The last change in legislation was made in 2008 and since then technology has been evolving. “The legislation needs to reflect the changes,” he added.

According to the head of one of India’s largest ATM companies, “Norms suggest that if the customer shares card details with another person or compromises the data from his side, then the responsibility is on the customer. But at the bank’s or processor’s level, the bank has to compensate depending on their agreement with the processing firm.”