or either ways a master/maestro card will solve the prob. coz if every card has a transaction password; no worry even if anyone loses cards.. what say..?
By
Gourav Chavan, Team Lead , Karma Infosystems Inc.
| 03 05 2010 14:16:32 +0000
YES, if it is mandate for the merchant to verify the signatures on the back of the card with the Charge slip and he has to forego the money for improper verification. But how far will the banks implement this and penalise the merchants is doubtful. Instead banks will either make the card holders suffer or go on to claim from insurance because a merchant who gives big business to them is more valuable to a bank than any cardholder. If banks can strictly implement this 90% of the fraudulent transactions can be stopped and card holders will have reasonable security even if their cards are lost. In this context I request Mr.Kiran Jain to enlighten me whether there is any mandate for the merchants to procure a copy of a valid identification of the cardholder for all transactions above certain limit. If this kind of mandate exists then I am sure that there will be no fraudulent swiping transaction above that limit.
By
Surya Guduru, Freelancer, Freelancer
| 11 21 2009 06:19:27 +0000
Lets break the entire topic into different units: Unit 1: Why signature at the back of a card:- Once a card holder receives a signature he has to sign at the back of the card and signature indicates his/her acceptace of the terms and conditions laid by the bank, which means whether fraud or no fraud you accept to the terms and conditions. Unit 2: Once Signed, then What ? : As per the mandate every merchant has to verify the signatures on the back of the card with the Charge slip. It is the mistake of the merchant if the signatures are not verified, hence any successful claim made by the card holder is a loss to the merchant, as he will not get the payment from the bank. Unit 3: What if the card is lost and still mis-used, but the merchant didnt verify the signature: - Every card holder has the right to raise a dispute with the bank which has issued the card, stating the transaction details with in 48 hours of such loss of card and bank inturn will take it up with Visa/Master or maestro for a charge back, basis the verification which is carried by the respective issuer. Under a normal course same would take 30-52 working days, but yes if the transaction are fradulent then the card holder is protected and he gets his money back. Last but no least, every card comes with a insurance cover and banks are protected. Provided the reporting of a fradulent transactionis done with in the stipulated period. Good news: HDFC Bank has launched Virtual Debit card in association with mCheck. Which means you can buy movie tickets, airline tickets, shop and do lot many things with the help of your mobile. Even if you loose your mobile no one can mis-use your debit card as it required 6 digit PIN. Log onto www.hdfcbank.com for more details.
By
Kiran Jain, Senior manager Key Corporates, HDFC Bank Ltd
| 10 30 2009 14:47:53 +0000
i agree with jyoti.... even if it is not helping 100% to eliminate fraud.... one thing is for sure , it is atleast reducing fraud to some extent.... tnx.
By
dilip gour, NA, ABCABC
| 10 30 2009 14:13:57 +0000
yes because at time of emergency credit cards were may used.and without proper identification it cannot be used by others and also by using card we can safely have our money without carrying the money in our pockets and safe from thefts
By
jiks , jiksgroups founder
| 10 30 2009 13:49:01 +0000
Yes I think I would be beneficial for both card holder & issuers as far as security is concerned.
By
prakashraj kumavat, MBA/PGDM student, Omegan School of Business (ICFAI Tripura)
| 10 29 2009 17:35:09 +0000
your argument that forgers can forge the signature and the merchant has evidence for the transaction for the transaction done by a forger. The signature is the identification of the card holder and some cards have photos on the card. Bank accounts are also dependent on signature of customers. by any stretch of imagination of you cannot ask the banks to do away with signatures in the maintenance of the accounts. Doing away with signature strip is not going to help. the card holder should be careful with the possession of the cards.
By
kanukurthy sudershanrao, Operations Manager, Andhra Bank
| 10 29 2009 15:37:05 +0000
I agree with Jyoti. If proper identification is not there, how can somebody know whether the person who approached is genuine or not? Even identity cards can be produced now a days. So its better to have a signature on the cards so that it can be cross checked and the money can be delivered to the genuine person only...
By
Swati Raut, Product Manager, Aviva
| 10 29 2009 08:54:37 +0000
|
Since merchant has to process transaction and also have to reduce the customer waiting time in processing the transaction,I dont think even if signature card is introduced, it would be helpful in reducing the fraud to a remarkable extent. Many merchant would try to compete to sale goods rather than verification. Also merchants cant be that much expert in verification. Its better to introduce a bio or finger print system for verification which will be unique. Lets wait for it
By
Kumar shanmugam, null
| 07 01 2012 17:50:50 +0000
pin for either debit card or the credit card should be made mandatory.
By
malladi madhukumar, Senior Manager- Marketing, Cement company
| 01 01 2010 15:51:55 +0000
Yes the signature srtp in the card does not serve any purpose. The bank also will definitely charge the card holder for the transaction done by him or somebody. One suggestion is that before bank approves the transaction it can take confirmation from the card holder through mobile by SMS, or reply to SMS from bank by the card holder. May be the transaction delayed by some time 5 or 10 minutes, but will be fail safe arrangement till a bio or finger print system become practicable.
By
Ganagaraj Ramachandran, Factory Head, MoserBaer Clean energy Ltd
| 10 30 2009 11:35:02 +0000
Signature as a concept is good. But, practically it is useless. Many merchants don't even look at it while accepting payment....so that explains its invalidity. Some credit cards provide for embossed photograph, that should be made compulsory for all the cards. Biometric cards is only the solutuion....let us wait for it!!!
By
SHARATH CHANDAR REDDY, Business Development Manager - Insurance, I T C Ltd
| 10 30 2009 04:50:18 +0000
I donot think so, credit / debit card need a signature strip. Many marchants will not check the signature, more over they simply swip and returns back immediately particularly in big malls, and the banks also not verifying the signature on the transaction slip. If banks not verifying the transaction slip signature, then what is need of signature strip on the card?
By
Chandramouli , Sr. Manager - QS & Contracts
| 10 30 2009 04:31:58 +0000
Hi ''yes'' siders, If I am one of those rowdies whom Jyoti mentions and have stolen your card and made an easy transaction of rs.30000 imitating your signature and only then you report your lost-card and block it, will your Barclays/xxxx bank accept that the transaction was fraudulent ? and will you get back your money ?
By
shersks , Network Designer, TATA COMMUNICATIONS
| 10 29 2009 21:30:07 +0000
There is no signature needed on the credit card, one who holds the card can actually copy the sign and transact.. What is necessary is to have a PIN of every card like we have in ATM and for Cash Withdrawal, that will help reduce the frauds in cards..
By
Japan Shah, H.O.D, Oxford School of Management
| 10 29 2009 09:11:32 +0000
Jyoti, there are many experts roaming in the market who can very easily copy any signature without any mistake. Many of them are even professional rowdies. If these people get the card and the signature on it, they will face no problem in withdrawing money. So, I suggest there should be no identification mark on the card rather it should be in the bank. Something like codes which need not be written. The owner can remember it and use it wherever he wants...
By
Sonam Kapoor, Software Developer, IBM
| 10 29 2009 08:10:28 +0000
I do not think, it is required. Awaiting a better way.
By
shersks , Network Designer, TATA COMMUNICATIONS
| 10 27 2009 20:27:06 +0000
|
