Assumption : I am assuming that you had not travelled to The Netherlands in absence of any information to the contrary

Reference: The Reserve bank of India has issued guidelines to commercial banks in handling grievances due to wrongful billing and has also set a time limit for preferring their response vide RBI/2015-6/31DBR.No.FSD.BC.18/24.01.009/2015-16 dated 1 July 2015.

The card holder has the onus to prove that he has not used the card nor has he ever travelled to that country in order to establish that the bank’s action in billing him the amount was wrong. He has also to establish that the process of card verification was not undertaken or SMS alert were not received by him.

If you had proved on the basis of your passport that you has not travelled to Netherland, then it appears to me that the bank should not have raised the bill on you since this is a case of cyber fraud committed in a country the card holder has not visited. Hence there is no question of any negligence on the part of the card holder.

The card holder may once again lodge a fresh complaint with the bank providing all the details supported by documentary evidence, and facts of the case.

You should seek explanation from the bank on their action in raising the bill on him. You should seek explanation whether the One Time Password was issued when the transaction took place and how the security verification process was carried out.

The bank is expected to provide the details to the complainant within a period of sixty days with a spirit to amicably redress the grievances.

If a complainant has not received satisfactory response from the bank within a maximum period of thirty (30) days from the date of his lodging the complaint, you have the option to approach the Office of the concerned Banking Ombudsman for redressal of grievance/s. The bank shall be liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his time, expenses, financial loss as well as for the harassment and mental anguish suffered by you for the fault of the bank and where the grievance has not been redressed in time.

In so far as parting with the information with CIBIL is concerned , it is a regulatory requirement to provide information relating to credit history/repayment record of the card holder to a Credit Information Company , in terms of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. This is explicitly brought to the notice of the customer.

Before reporting default status of a credit card holder the bank is required to provide sufficient notice to the credit card holder about the intention to report him as defaulter to the Credit Information Company.

The procedure should also cover the notice period for such reporting as also the period within which such report will be withdrawn in the event the customer settles his dues after having been reported as defaulter.

The RBI expects Banks to be careful in the case of cards where there are pending disputes. The disclosure/release of information, particularly about the default, should be made only after the dispute is settled as far as possible. In all cases, a well laid down procedure should be transparently followed.