Rs 2L fine slapped on passport office in Hubballi for mistakenly stamping ‘cancellation’ on passport
Hubballi: The District Consumer Grievances Redressal Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 2 lakh on the passport office in Hubballi for mistakenly stamping ‘cancellation’ on a valid passport.
Pankesh Jain, a businessman from Hubballi’s Keshwapur, was denied boarding at Mumbai Airport on his way to Dubai with his wife and two children after a “cancellation” stamp was mistakenly placed on his passport by the Hubballi Passport Office during the children’s passport issuance, as reported by Deccan Herald on Wednesday.
Jain was unaware of the error until the inspection at the airport. He immediately contacted his relatives in Hubballi, who informed the passport office. The department acknowledged the error and corrected the passport by coordinating with the Mumbai office. The correction, however, cost Jain Rs 11,000 and led to a one-day delay in their trip.
Due to the passport cancellation, Jain faced extra accommodation costs in Mumbai and lost two days of his planned Dubai stay. He filed a Rs 25 lakh compensation claim with the Dharwad District Consumer Commission, citing service deficiency by the passport office.
While the respondents cited Section 16 of the Passport Act, arguing that no action could be taken against officials, Commission Chairman Eshappa Bhute and member Vishalakshi Bolashetti, after a thorough review, ruled that the cancellation stamp on Jain’s valid passport was a departmental error, the report stated.
The Commission rejected the respondents' objections and held the passport department accountable for the service deficiency. It directed the department to compensate Jain with Rs 2 lakh, covering Rs 62,876 for additional flight costs, Rs 11,000 for passport correction, one day's accommodation, inconvenience, and Rs 10,000 for legal expenses.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
In a first, Bengaluru woman loses Rs 2 lakh after pressing ‘1’ on fake IVR call: Report
Bengaluru: In what appears to be the first such cybercrime reported in Bengaluru, a 57-year-old woman reportedly lost Rs 2 lakh after following instructions and pressing a key during a fake IVR (Interactive Voice Response) call from a nationalised bank.
The woman, a resident of Dattatreyanagar in Hosakerehalli, received a call that appeared to be from the State Bank of India (SBI), a bank she holds an account with. The IVR message claimed that Rs 2 lakh was being transferred from her account and instructed her to press '1' if she did not authorize the transaction, as reported by the Times of India on Thursday.
"I was shocked on hearing the voice note as I had not done any such transaction. I didn't press any number. The voice note repeated, saying that I have not responded. I was confused. After three rounds of such announcements, I pressed 1 as I had not initiated the transaction. Soon after that, there was a second announcement stating, ‘Please visit your bank and contact the manager immediately.' Subsequently, the call got disconnected," she told the national daily.
Shortly after, the call disconnected, and she discovered a Rs 2 lakh loss in her account. She immediately contacted her bank and filed a complaint with the police.
Meanwhile, a senior police officer explained that fraudsters often use IVR calls to ask for personal details like the last four digits of a debit card, bank account number, date of birth, email ID, or other information needed to access online banking. "Once the victim shares the information, the money is siphoned off. Without sharing the credentials, it is not possible to siphon off money just by pressing the options 3 or 1 or 9," he told TOI.
The officer noted that the victim may have shared some information in response to the voice message, which could have allowed the fraudsters to access her account and steal the money. If she didn't provide any details, this type of scam would be new to them, and the investigation will provide more clarity.
A case has been registered under the Information Technology Act and BNS section 318 (cheating).
