perception of card users towards...

PERCEPTION OF CARD USERS TOWARDS

PLASTIC MONEY

This chapter analyses the perception of card holders towards plastic money in

India. The emphasis has been laid on the adoption, usage, value attributes, bottlenecks

and factors influencing plastic money adoption. The previous chapter surveyed the

current scenario on legal and regulatory frame work in India and it was found that

though more reforms have to be initiated. The current system is able to support the

smooth adoption and monitoring payments through plastic money. Also, it has been

indicated by the recent research that plastic money adoption is on the rise as there is an

increasing number of merchant establishments in India accepting majority of cards. The

current analysis has been divided into seven sections which include perceptional

analysis age-wise, occupation-wise, gender-wise, education wise, income-wise, analysis

of antecedents and spending pattern, and lastly analysis of perceived risk and utility.

5.1 Usage of Plastic Money

The objective of this question was to observe the type of plastic money used by

various respondents, so that the importance of a particular type of plastic money could

be judged. Whether the plastic money used has any relation with age, gender, income,

occupation, and educational level or not , the following analysis was done:

5.1.1 Usage of Plastic Money (Age –wise)

Age-wise, the card users have been considered vital in evaluating perception of

people at their different ages in relation to adoption of plastic money. Many researches

show that age is significantly related to the adoption of plastic money. This research has

sought to find out whether age-wise analysis brings out different perspectives from

other dimensions like gender wise, income wise, occupation-wise and education-wise.

Card users were asked to indicate the type of card they have used. Since the

other types of cards were not so popular during pilot study, only credit and debit cards

represent plastic money. Table 5.1.1 indicates the result of plastic money usage (Age-

wise) in India.

Perception of Card Holders towards Plastic Money

98

Table 5.1.1: Usage of Plastic Money (Age – wise)

Variable 18-30 years 31-45 years 46 years and above Total

Debit card 37

(50)

72

(33)

4

(5.4)

74

(25.34)

Credit card 72

(33)

108

(49.5)

38

(17.4)

218

(74.65)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=10.09, df= 2 , t- value at 5% = 5.99

Note: Number in parenthesis show percentages

The table above shows that majority of users have credit cards (218 respondents)

while 74 respondents reported that they possess debit cards. The age-wise analysis

indicates that out of the total respondents with credit cards majority (49.5%) were

young middle aged (31-45 years) followed by younger users with less than 30 years.

The aged respondents (17.4%) indicated that they are using credit cards. This may be

perhaps due to lack of proper awareness or customer ignorance about change in

technology or may be they are cash conservatives. Further, the result shows that

majority (50%) of debit cards holders were less than 30 years of age, followed by the

young middle aged (44.6%), only 5% of aged people adopted debit card.

The chi-square value of responses from the age perspective on the usage of

plastic money is significant at 5 % level of significance. Hence, there is a strong

association between the age and utility derived from plastic money usage. Thus, age is

the important variable to enhance the usage of plastic money.

5.1.2 Usage of Plastic Money (Gender-wise)

Gender wise opinions reveal what exactly is existing between male and female

card users and what they perceive about plastic money. This section will try to analyse

the card users’ perception gender wise.

The result indicated that the majority of respondents (77.4%) were male and

female respondents comprised only 22.6 %.


99

Table 5.1.2 Usage of Plastic Money (Gender -wise)

Variable Male Female Total

Debit card 51

(68.9)

14

(31.1) 74

(25.34)

Credit card 175

(80.3)

43

(19.7) 218

(74.65)

Total 226

(77.4)

66

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=4.07, df= 2, t-value at 5% = 5.99


Table 5.1.2 indicates that out of the respondents who indicated to have adopted

credit cards, 80.3% were male and only 19.7% were female. Also, 68.9% of debit card

adopters were male and 31.1% of the debit card adopters were females. This indicates

that male respondents use and adopt more plastic cards than their counterparts.

Chi-square value of responses from the gender perspective on the usage of

plastic money is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Hence, given the weak

association between gender and utility derived from plastic money usage, this variable

is independent in nature.

5.1.3 Usage of Plastic Money (Income wise)

From the income perspective, interesting result was also noticed. Table 5.1.3

revealed that out of all users surveyed, majority (54.5%) belong to the class of people

who earn a monthly income of Rs. 20,001-60,000, followed by the income class of upto

Rs. 20,000. Those who belong to a higher income class were only 2.7%. This can be

interpreted that the higher income class do not use plastic cards or did not reveal their

true range of monthly income. Further, the result shows that out of those who use debit

card, 44.6% belong to income of Rs. 20,001-60,000 while the minority were high class

earners above Rs. 100,000 per month. Also, 43.2% of the respondents who use debit

cards earns upto Rs. 20,000.

Table 5.1.3 Usage of plastic money (Income wise)

Variable Up to

Rs.20000

20001-60000 60001-

100000

Above

Rs.100000

Total

Debit card 32

(43.2)

33

(44.6)

8

(10.8)

1

(1.40) 74

(25.34)

Credit card 43

(19.7)

126

(57.8)

42

(19.3)

7

(3.2) 218

(74.65)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=16.67, df= 3, t-value at 5% = 7.81



100

The respondents who indicated that they are using credit cards, majority of them

earn between Rs. 20,001-60,000 per month, followed by those who earn upto Rs.

20,000 and from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 100,000 per month. Minority were the higher class

earners (above Rs. 100,000). This might be because norms for providing credit cards are

tough for small income earners. In many institutions, they prefer offering credit cards to

heavy pocketed clients than light pocketed clients. This tradition has hindered many

clients especially those who belong to small and medium income class. The result

indicates that higher class of income gainers prefer credit card to debit card. With the

increase in income level, the ratio of credit card to debit card is increasing. The chi-

square value of responses income-wise for the usage of plastic money is significant at

5% level of significance. Hence, plastic money is affected by the income level of

respondents.

5.1.4 Usage of Plastic money (Education wise)

Education of cards users is vital parameter. This analysis sought to find out if

there exists any disparity of card users’ perception from the perspective of educational

qualification of the users. It was evident from the result that majority (50.7%) of the

respondents were well learned with post graduate qualification, followed by graduates

and others with 3.8% respectively. This indicates that those who have adopted cards are

well qualified and the people without good educational qualification seems to be

reluctant to use plastic money.

Table 5.1.4 Usage of plastic money (Education -wise)

Variable Graduate Post Graduate Any Other Total

Debit card 41

(55.4)

29

(39.2)

4

(5.4) 74

(25.34)

Credit card 92

(42.2)

119

(54.6)

7

(3.2) 218

(74.65)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=5.41, df= 2, t- value at 5% = 5.99


Table 5.1.4 shows that the majority of respondents surveyed use credit cards.

Among them, 54.6% are post graduates, 42.2% are graduates and 3.2% belong to other


101

class. Also, among those who reported that they have adopted debit cards, 55.4% were

just graduates and 39.2% were post graduates. These results show that only those

people with good educational background sought to adopt more credit cards as

compared to debit cards. This may be easy for the highly qualified people to manage

their funds more wisely as compared to other groups. The chi-square value of

responses from the education perspective is insignificant at 5% level of significance. It

can be concluded that usage of plastic money is not affected by the educational

qualification of the respondents rather it is dependent upon some other variable.

5.1.5 Usage of Plastic money (Occupation- wise)

This section analyses the perceptions of plastic card users on the basis of their

occupation. This perspective reveals that majority of respondents, (61.3%) were

services class people, 23.6% were professionals and 15% were business people. This

indicates that mostly the service class people prefer using cards than business class

people.

Table 5.1.5 Usage of plastic money (occupation -wise)

Variable Business Service class Professional Total

Debit card 3

(4.1)

52

(70.3)

19

(25.7) 74

(25.34)

Credit card 41

(18.8)

127

(58.3)

50

(22.9) 218

(74.65)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=9.46, df= 2, t- value at 5% =5.99


Table 5.1.5 indicates that majority (74.65%) of the respondents have credit

cards. Out of them, 58.3% were service people, 22.9% were professional and 18.8%

were business people. Among those who were debit card holders, 70.3% were

servicemen, 25.7% professional and 4.1% business people. This shows that service

class people are in majority of card users, followed by professionals. Businessmen don’t

prefer using cards in payments. Chi-square value of responses for the usage of plastic

money from the occupation perspective is significant at 5% level of significance. This


102

shows that the occupation affects the usage pattern of respondent as different

occupational groups use the plastic money in their own way.

From the above analysis, it can be concluded that plastic money usage is

affected by age, occupation and income level which indicates that these variables are

not independent but dependent whereas gender and educational qualification has no

relation with the usage of plastic money as these variables are independent.

5.2 Number of Cards Held by Users

Plastic card users have the tendency of using more than one card. This behaviour

comes about due to the demand for service satisfaction from card providers, and the

dissimilar services provided. The card users were asked to indicate the number of cards

held by them. This section will analyses the number of cards held with customers on

different parameters.

5.2.1 Numbers of cards held by users ( Age - wise)

The opinion from age wise may reveal what actually utility perceived by

different age group from the number of cards they hold

Table 5.2.1 Number of Card held (Age- Wise)


1 Card 32

(60.40)

17

(32.1)

4

(7.5) 53

(18.15)

2-3 Cards 61

(36.10

85

(50.3)

23

(13.6) 169

(57.87)

4-5 Card 14

(25)

23

(13.6)

10

(17.9) 56

(19.17)

>5 Card 2

(14.30)

169

(57.87)

5

(35.7) 14

(4.79)

Total 109

(37.30)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=22.52, df= 6, t-value at 5% = 12.6


Table 5.2.1 shows that majority of the respondents (57.87%) have 2-3 cards,

followed by the second lot (19.17%) with 4-5 cards. It was indicated that only 4.79%

possess more than five cards which belong to different institutions. For those who

reported to have 2-3 cards, majority (50.3%) were of the age between 31-45, followed

by younger (less than 30 years) lot with 36.10%. The respondents who reported that


103

they had only one card, majority of them belonged to young category (less than 30 years

of age). Also, minority was the older people with the age of over 45 years. The table

further shows that the respondents who indicated that they possess 4-5 cards and above

5 cards majority were of the age 31-45 years (57.1% and 50% respectively). 25% of the

respondents from the age of less than 30 years and 17.9% more than 46 years said that

they possess 4-5 cards whereas 14.30% and 35.7% of the respondents said that they

possess more than five cards out the total 14 respondents from this category. The chi-

square value of responses from age-wise for the holding of number of card is significant

at 5% level of significance. It can be concluded from the above analysis that there is a

strong association between age and number of cards held by respondents. The co-

relation value is positively correlated with the given attributes shows, with the age the

possession of cards has been increased as majority of the respondents are the young

middle aged people.

5.2.2 Numbers of cards held by users (Gender- wise)

This section will try to analyse the number of cards held by users gender wise.

The opinion from gender wise reveals from what number of cards they receive the

utility.

Table 5.2.2 Numbers of Cards held (Gender- Wise)


1 card 34

(64.2)

19

(35.8) 53

(18.15)

2-3 cards 127

(75.1)

42

(24.9) 169

(57.87)

4-5 cards 51

(91.1)

5

(8.9) 56

(19.17)

75 cards 14

(100)

-

- 14

(4.79)

Total 226

(77.4)

66

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=15.88, df= 3, t-value at 5% = 7.81


Table 5.2.2 shows the result regarding the number of cards held by users on

gender basis. It was clear that out of the majority of males and females respondents

(57.87%) who reported that have 2-3 cards, 75.1% were male respondents and 24.9%

were female. Among those who said that they prefer using only one card, 64.2% were


104

male and only 35.8% were female. It was interesting that only male respondents were

having more than 5 cards in possession. However, it was not clear whether they use all

of them or not.

19.17% of the male and female respondents reported to have 4-5 cards. Among

those who possess 4-5 cards, 91.1% were males and 8.9% were females. This can be

interpreted that female rarely possess or use plastic money as the possession of plastic

cards is dominated by males. The chi-square value of responses from gender-wise for

the holding of cards is significant at 5% level of significance. Hence, there is an

association between gender and number of cards held with users. Therefore, it is

concluded from the analysis that the possession of plastic money is dominated by males

as compared to females.

5.2.3 Numbers of cards held by users (Income-Wise)

The opinion from income-wise may reveal what actually utility perceived by

different income group from the number of cards they hold. Table 5.2.3 indicates that

out of the total respondents who reported to be possess 2-3 cards, majority (59.2%)

belonged to the class of users who receive a monthly income between Rs. 20,001-

60,000, 23.1% belonged to upto Rs. 20,000 per month. Also, 2.4% of those who possess

2-3 cards were high income gainers (above Rs. 100,000). Among the respondents who

posses only one card, the income of majority of them was less than Rs. 20,000 followed

by income between Rs. 20,001-60,000. This indicates that the users of cards are mostly

low income class.

Table 5.2.3 Number of cards held (Income- Wise)

Variable Up to

Rs.20000

20001-60000 60001-

100000

Above

Rs.100000

Total

1 Card 28

(52.8)

21

(39.6)

1

(1.9)

3

(5.70) 53

(18.15)

2-3 Cards 39

(23.1)

100

(59.2)

26

(15.4)

4

(2.4) 169

(57.87)

4-5 Cards 7

(12.5)

32

(57.10)

16

(28.6)

1

(1.8) 56

(19.17)

More than 5

Cards

1

(7.1)

6

(42.9)

7

(50)

- 14

(4.79)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=47.48, df= 9, t-value at 5% = 16.9



105

The table further shows that the users who possess more than 5 cards belonged

to high income (Rs. 60,001-100,000). This indicates that the plastic card is a symbol

status to the higher class people. The result also shows that among those who indicated

that they possess 4-5 cards, majority of them (85.7%) earn Rs. 20,001-60,000. The chi-

square value of responses from the income-perspective of users for the number of cards

they hold is positively and significantly associated with it. This shows that with the

increase in income of respondents, there is a tendency to hold more number of cards.

5.2.4 Number of cards held by users (Education- Wise)

This section analyses the perception of cardholders from education perspective

for the number of cards they hold. In this section users were asked to report the number

of cards held by them. Table 5.2.4 shows that majority (57.87%) of the respondents said

that they possess 2-3 plastic cards and among them 49.7% were post graduates, 45.6%

were graduates and only 4.7% did not specify their qualification. Among those who

reported that they possess only one card, 58.5% were graduates and 41.5% were post

graduates. 19.17% of those who said they possess 4-5 cards 55.4% were post graduates

and 39.3% were graduates.

Table 5.2.4 Number of cards held (Education-Wise)


1 card 31

(58.5)

2

(41.5)

- 53

(18.15)

2-3 cards 77

(45.6)

84

(49.7)

8

(4.7) 169

(57.87)

4-5 cards 22

(39.3)

31

(55.4)

3

(5.4) 56

(19.17)

>5 cards 3

(21.4)

11

(78.6)

- 14

(4.79)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=10.84, df= 6, t- value at 5% = 12.6


The table further shows that there were respondents who said that they have

more than 5 cards and among them 78.6% were post graduates and 21.4% were

graduates.. The value of chi-square of responses from the education perspective for the

holding of cards is insignificant at 5% level of significance. This shows that holding of


106

more number of cards is not dependent upon the education of the users. Hence, we can

say good qualification does not leads to holding of more cards.

5.2.5 Number of Cards Held by users (occupation- wise)

The occupation wise category of card holders indicated that that some possess

more than one card.

Table 5.2.5 Number of cards held (occupation- Wise)


1 Card 5

(9.4)

32

(60.4)

16

(30.2) 53

(18.15)

2-3 Cards 25

(14.8)

107

(63.3)

37

(21.9) 169

(57.87)

4-5 Cards 13

(23.2)

31

(55.4)

12

(21.4) 56

(19.17)

More than 5

Cards

1

(7.1)

9

(64.3)

4

(28.6) 14

(4.79)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=6.07, df= 6,t-value at 5% = 12.6


Table 5.2.5 indicates that out of total number of respondents, majority possess 2-

3 cards and from them 63.3% were service class and 21.9% were professionals. Further,

the table shows that out of those who reported to possess only one card, majority were

service class, followed by (30.2%) professionals and (9.4%) business people. Some

respondents also said that they possess more than 5 cards of which majority were from

service class. The chi-square value is insignificant at 5% level of significance which

means there is no association between occupation and the possession of cards by

respondents as these variables are independent.

The above analysis shows that age, gender and income level affect the number

of cards held by users whereas occupational level and educational level does not seem

to affect the number of cards in the possession of users.

5.3 Utility of Plastic Money

The demand for plastic money is accelerated by the utility perceived by the

users. This study attempted to get the perceived utility of plastic money which leads to


107

the need of cards adoption. The aim of this section was to observe to what extent, users

perceived the utility from plastic money. The analysis was done keeping in mind

different parameters, which are as follow:

5.3.1 Utility of Plastic Money (Age – wise)

This section will analyse the perceived utility of plastic money from different

categories. From the age perspective, out of the total sample surveyed, 51.7 % of the

respondents indicated that plastic money is essential, 30.13% reportedly indicated that

plastic money is vital as shown in Table 5.3.1. Also 1.36% and 68% respectively said

that it is a waste of resources or they cannot say exactly.

Table 5.3.1 Utility of Plastic Money (Age –wise)


Vital 29

(33)

47

(13.6)

12

(13.6) 88

(30.13)

Essential 60

(39.7)

68

(45)

23

(15.2) 151

(51.7)

Desirable 16

(34)

24

(51.1)

7

(14.9) 47

(16.09)

A Waste of

resource

2

(50)

2

(50)

- 4

(1.36)

Can’t say

exactly

2

(100) - - 2

(.68)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42.

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=5.93, df= 8, t-value at 5% = 15.5


Out of the 151 respondents (51.7%) who said plastic money is essential,

majority of them (45%) were between 31-45 years of age, 39.7% were less than 30

years of age and 15.2% were over 46 years. Further, it was indicated that among those

who said plastic money is vital, majority 53.4% were of the age between 31-45 years,

followed by 33% at the age of less than 30 years. For the respondents who said that

plastic money is desirable, majority (51.1%) were between the age of 31-45, followed

by those who were at the age of less than 30 years and lastly, 14.9% indicated that they

were at the age of above 46 years. 2 respondents were unable to say exactly about the

utility of plastic money. Inferential statistics shows that age has insignificant

relationship with the perception of users at 5% level of significance. It can be concluded


108

from above analysis that young users derived more utility from plastic money as

compared to aged people.

5.3.2 Utility of Plastic Money (Gender – wise)

From gender perspective, the respondents were asked to indicate as to what

extent they perceived the utility from plastic money. The result is presented in table no

5.3.2.the result indicates that among the majority (51.7%) of respondents who reported

that plastic money is essential, 78.1% were males and 21.9% were females. 30.13%

who reported that plastic money is vital, 73.9% were males and 26.1% were females.

Table 5.3.2 Utility of plastic money (Gender – wise)


Vital 65

(73.9)

23

(26.1) 88

(30.13)

Essential 118

(78.1)

33

(21.9) 151

(51.7)

Desirable 39

(83)

8

(17) 47

(16.09)

A waste of resources 3

(75)

1

(25) 4

(1.36)

Can’t say exactly 1

(50)

1

(50) 2

(.68)

Total (226)

(77.4)

(66)

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=2.39, df= 4, t-value at 5% = 9.49


This shows also that male respondents consider plastic money to be vital. This

may be because of the reason that they are involved in many situations where payments

are needed.

Further, it clear that 16.09% who said that plastic money is desirable, 83% were

males and 17% females. Among those who reportedly said that it is a waste of money,

75.0% were male and 25% were female. However, 2 respondents were unable to

express their value attitude towards plastic money. The chi-square value of responses on

the utility of plastic money for the gender wise is insignificant at 5% level of

significance. It shows both males and females do not differentiate between the utility

derived from plastic money although the possession is dominated by the males as

compared to females.


109

5.3.3 Utility of Plastic Money (Income-wise)

Respondents were asked to indicate whether plastic money is vital, essential,

and desirable or a waste of resources. From income perspective, table 5.3.3 shows the

result.

Table 5.3.3 Utility of plastic money (Income-wise)

Variable Upto

Rs.20000

20001-

60000

60001-

100000

Above

Rs.100000

Total

Vital 15

(17)

53

(60.2)

20

(22.7)

- 88

(30.13)

Essential 41

(27.2)

84

(55.6)

21

(13.9)

5

(3.3) 151

(51.7)

Desirable 15

(31.9)

20

(42.6)

9

(19.1)

3

(6.4) 47

(16.09)

A Waste of

resources

3

(75)

1

(25)

- - 4

(1.36)

Can’t say

exactly

1

(50)

1

(50)

- - 2

(.68)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=18.78, df= 12, t-value at 5% = 21.0


Those respondents who reported that plastic money is essential, 55.6% earns

between Rs. 20,001-60,000, 27.2% earn less than Rs. 20,000 and 13.9% earn Rs.

60,001-100,000. Further, the result indicated that among those who said that plastic

money is vital, 60% earn Rs. 20,001-60,000, 22.7% earn Rs. 60,001-1,00,000 and 17%

earn less then Rs. 20,000. 16.09% of those who said that it is desirable, 42.6% belonged

to the class of people who earn Rs. 20,001-60,000, 19.1% earn Rs. 60,001-100,000 and

31.9% earn less than Rs. 20,000. Only four respondents said that it is a waste of

resources and majority were those who earn less than Rs. 20,000. The chi-square value

of responses on the utility derived from plastic money is insignificant at 5% level of

significance from the income perspective. It can be concluded that higher income group

does not receive more utility as compared to other lower income group, rather income

was observed and does not seem to affect the utility value of plastic money.


110

5.3.4 Utility of Plastic Money (Education-wise)

The responses from the users on the basis of their educational level reported

whether plastic money adoption is vital, essential, desirable, or a waste of resources.

Table 5.3.4 Utility of plastic money (Education-wise)


Vital 39

(44.3)

46

(52.3)

3

(3.40)

88

(30.13)

Essential 66

(43.7)

79

(52.3)

6

(4)

151

(51.7)

Desirable 24

(51.1)

21

(44.7)

2

(4.3)

47

(16.09)

A waste of

resources

3

(75)

1

(25)

- 4

(1.36)

Can’t say

exactly

1

(50)

1

(50)

- 2

(.68)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=2.51, df= 8, t- value at 5% = 15.5


Table 5.3.4 shows that majority of the respondents reported that plastic money

adoption was essential. Among those who said so, 52.3% were post graduates and

43.7% were graduates. Out of those who said that plastic money adoption is vital,

44.3% were graduates and 52.3% were post graduates. Only 3.40% belong to other

class which did not specify their educational qualification. For those who said that

plastic money is desirable, 51.1% were graduates, 44.7% were post graduates and only

4.3% did not specify their qualification. Some respondents also said that it is a waste of

resources, of which 3 respondents were graduates and 1 respondent was post graduate.

This result shows that plastic money is perceived to be essential and should be adopted

as it provides useful services which replaces the conventional way of making purchases

and payment. Inferential statistics shows there is no association between educational

qualification and customers perceptions at 5 percent level of significance. It shows that


111

utility derived from plastic money is not dependent upon the educational qualification

rather it is influenced by some other variable.

5.3.5 Utility of Plastic Money (Occupation-wise)

Utility of plastic money is different for various occupational group. In this

section, the extent of utility is derived from plastic money is analyzed from different

occupational groups. The result are shown on table no.5.3.5

Table 5.3.5 Utility of plastic money (Occupation-wise)


Vital 19

(21.6)

47

(53.4)

22

(25) 88

(30.13)

Essential 19

(12.6)

92

(60.9)

40

(26.5) 151

(51.7)

Desirable 6

(12.8)

35

(74.5)

6

(12.8) 47

(16.09)

A Waste of

resources

- 3

(75)

1

(25) 4

(1.36)

Can’t say

exactly

- 2

(100)

- 2

(.68)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=10.43, df= 8, t-value at 5% = 15.5


Table 5.3.5 shows that majority (51.7%) of the respondents said that plastic

money is essential. Among those who supported this intensity, 60.9% were service

people, 26.5% were professionals and 12.6% were business people. Among those who

said that plastic money is vital, 53.4% were service people, 21.6% of each were

businessmen and 25% professional. Only six respondents said they either can’t say or it

is a waste of resources.

The chi-square value of responses for the utility of plastic money on

occupational basis is insignificant at 5% level of significance. It can be concluded from

the above analysis that occupation does not seem to affect the utility derived from the

usage of plastic money

From the study, it is revealed that none of variables (age, gender, occupation,

income and educational) has utility perceived from plastic money as all the variables are

independent in mature.


112

5.4 Frequency of Card Usage

Even though card users possess multiple cards, the way they use them is also

vital to the cards industry. Some respondents possess more than 2 cards but they don’t

use them frequently. Users were asked to indicate their frequency in using their cards to

know whether they are active cardholders or inactive one. This will help the card

providing firm to know if the increase in the number of cards actually do the work they

are adopted for. In the study since the number of inactive cardholders as per data

collection is 9 out of 292, which is very negligible, it is not found worth while to

differentiate between active and in active users for the present study. So, all the

respondents under study are active cardholders. Perhaps persons who rarely use the

card, may be only for withdrawals from ATM, comes in the category of inactive card

user. Secondly, because ATM withdrawals have become compulsion for salaried

peoples, who only use the card to withdraw their salaries. The active cardholders are

those who use card for purchasing of goods or services but not only withdrawal of

money through ATM.

5.4.1 Frequency of Card Usage (Age-wise)

Different age-group may have the different frequency for using their cards.

From the age perspective, the frequency of card usage is shown on table No. 5.4.1

Table 5.4.1 Frequency of Card usage (Age-wise)


Almost daily 15

(57.7)

9

(34.6)

2

(7.7) 26

(8.90)

6-10 times in month 30

(39.5)

36

(47.4)

10

(13.2) 76

(26.02)

3-5 times in month 36

(28.3)

69

(54.3)

22

(17.3) 127

(43.49)

1-2 time in month 21

(45.7)

21

(45.7)

4

(8.7) 46

(15.75)

Not more than once a

month

2

(25)

3

(37.5)

3

(37.5) 8

(2.74)

Rarely used 5

(55.6)

3

(33.3)

1

(11.1) 9

(3.08`)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=16.19, df= 10 , t-value at 5% = 18.3



113

From table 5.4.1, it was indicated that majority (43.49%) of respondents use

their cards 3-5 times in a month, 26.02% use their cards at point of sale terminals 6-10

times in a month and 15.75% of respondents reported that they use their cards 1-2 times

a month. The high frequency of use will indicate that card user have placed their faith

and confidence in using plastic money. From age wise perspective, majority of the users

who said that they use their cards 3-5 times a month were 54.3% with the age of 31-45

years. Also 28.3% with the age of less than 30 years said that they use their cards 3-5

times a month. Further, from the table, it is indicated that among those who report that

they use their cards 6-10 times in a month, again majority were in age between 31-45

years, followed by 39.5% who were less than 30 years. The overall outlook suggests,

that more than 75% respondents reportedly indicated that they use their cards at least

five times a month. This shows that the trend is picking up. However, there is a need for

more to be done, for instance, taking the customers to confidence. The chi-square value

of responses for the frequency of card usage from the age perspective is insignificant at

5% level of significance. This shows that frequency of card usage is not affected by the

age factor but it is dependent upon some other policy variable which is needed to be

explored for the policy variable. .

5.4.2 Frequency of Card Usage (Gender-wise)

Gender wise analysis for the frequency of card usage depicts whether there

exists any disparity among the males and females for using the plastic money. The

result are presented in table no.5.4.2

Table 5.4.2 Frequency of card usage (Gender-wise)


Almost Daily 22

(84.6)

4

(15.4) 26

(8.9)

6-10 times in a month 61

(80.3)

15

(19.7) 76

(26.02)


(79.5)

26

(20.5) 127

(43.49)


(71.7)

13

(28.3) 46

(15.75)

Not more than once a month 7

(87.5)

1

(12.5) 8

(2.74)

Rarely used 2

(22.2)

7

(77.8) 9

(3.08)

Total 226

(77.4)

66

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=18.43, df= 5, t- value at 5% = 11.1



114

From table 5.4.2, it was indicated that 8.9% respondents who reportedly said

that they use their cards daily, majority (84.6%) were male and 15.4% were females.

80.3% of the respondents who were male indicated that they use 6-10 times in a month

and the rest were female who said that they use their cards 6-10 times in a month.

15.75% of respondents who use 1-2 times a month, 71.7% were males and 28.3%

females. 43.49% of male and female both use plastic money 3-5 times in a month, but

again it is dominated by male as compared to their counter parts. Among those who said

that they rarely use their cards, 77.8% were females and 22.2% were males. From this

result, it is clearly indicated that female respondents don’t use their cards in spending

which may be because either they are not involved in spending procedures or they don’t

like spending by using plastic money. The chi-square value of responses for the

frequency of card usage on the gender basis is significant at 5% level of significance.

Hence, gender has the association with the frequency usage of plastic money. It is clear

from the analysis that male respondents are more involved in spending with card as

compared to their counterparts.

5.4.3 Frequency of Card Usage (Income-wise)

The researcher sought to know from different income groups their frequency for

using the plastic money. From income perspective, the result for frequency of card

usage is shown on table 5.4.3

Table 5.4.3 Frequency of card usage (Income-wise)

Variable Up to

Rs.20000

20001-60000 60001-100000 Above

Rs.100000

Total

Almost Daily 10

(38.5)

12

(46.2)

3

(11.5)

1

(3.8) 26

(8.9)

6-10 times a

month

16

(21.1)

41

(53.9)

17

(22.4)

2

(2.6) 76

(26.02)

3-5 times month 27

(21.3)

75

(59.1)

23

(18.1)

2

(1.6) 127

(43.49)

1-2 times a

month

16

(34.8)

26

(56.5)

2

(4.3)

2

(4.3) 46

(15.75)

Not more that a

month

2

(25)

1

(12.5)

5

(62.5)

- 8

(2.74)

Rarely used 4

(44.4)

4

(44.4)

- 1

(11.1) 9

(3.08)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=30.60, df= 15, t- value at 5% = 25.0



115

The table shows that majority of the respondents using plastic money 3-5 times

in a month earn between Rs. 20,001-60,000. Also 18.1% of them earn Rs. 60,001-

100,000 and 21.3% earn less than Rs. 20,000. Further, 15.75% who use their cards one

to twice, among 56.5% earn between Rs. 20,001 to 60,000, 34.8% earn less than Rs.

20,000 and 4.3% earns above Rs. 100,000. 8.9% respondents reported that they use

their card almost daily. Among them, 38.5% earn less then Rs. 20,000, 46.2% earn

between Rs. 20,001-60,000 and 3.8% earn above Rs. 100,000. Those who said that they

use their cards once a month were only 8 respondents and among them majority earn

between Rs. 60,001-100,000.

The chi-square value of responses for the frequency of card usage on the income

basis is significant at 5% level of significance. So, there is a strong association between

income and frequency of card usage but they are negatively co-related to each other.

Hence, with the increase in income level does not mean usage frequency will also

increase. Rather it will decrease.

5.4.4 Frequency of card usage (Education-wise)

Education being the vital parameter. From this perspective, researcher sought to

know whether there is any disparity among the more educated then the less qualified

user. The result is shown in table 5.4.4

Table 5.4.4 Frequency of card usage (Education-wise)


Almost daily 12

(46.2)

13

(50)

1

(3.8)

26

(8.9)

6-10 times in a

month

30

(39.5)

41

(53.9)

5

(6.6)

76

(26.02)

3-5 times in a

month

52

(40.9)

71

(55.9)

4

(3.1)

127

(43.49)

1-2 times in a

month

28

(60.9)

18

(39.1)

- 46

(15.75)

Not more than

once a month

6

(75)

2

(25)

- 8

(2.74)

Rarely used 5

(55.6)

3

(33.3)

1

(11.1)

9

(3.08)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=13.98, df= 10 , t- value at 5% = 18.3



116

Table 5.4.4 shows that majority of card users use them 3-5 times a month,

followed by those who use 6-10 times a month and then those who use their cards 1-2

times a month. Among 43.49% of who use 3-5 times a month, 55.9% were post

graduates and 40.9% of were graduates. Also, 26.02% of those who use their cards 6-10

times in a month, 53.9% were post graduates, 39.5% were graduates and 6.6% did not

specify their qualification. Further, the result revealed that 15.75% of those who said

that they use plastic money once to twice a month, 60.9% were graduates and 39.1%

were post graduates. Only 8 respondents said that they use it once a month and 9

respondents reported that they rarely use their cards. This indicates that still all card

users have not full trusted the use of plastic money. The chi-square value of responses

for the usage frequency on the educational basis is insignificant at 5% level of

significance. Hence, higher education has no relation with the usage frequency of cards

but it is dependent upon some other variable.

5.4.5 Frequency of Card usage (Occupation-wise)

Frequency of card usage is dependent upon the need of the user. Different

occupational group may have different frequency for using their card according to their

needs. Frequency for card usage on occupational wise is shown on table no.5.4.5. Study

reveals that the majority (43.49%) of the respondents use their cards 3-5 times a month.

Out of them, 62.2% were service people, 23.6% professionals and 14.2% were business

people. Among those who said that they use their cards almost daily, 65.4% were from

service class, 15.4% were professionals and 19.2% were business people.

Table 5.4.5 Frequency of card usage (Occupation-wise)


Almost Daily 5

(19.2)

17

(65.4)

7

(15.4) 26

(8.90)

6-10 time in a

month

8

(10.5)

47

(61.8)

21

(27.6) 76

(26.02)

3-5 time in a

month

18

(14.2)

79

(62.2)

30

(23.6) 127

(43.49)

1-2 time in a

month

13

(28.3)

27

(58.7)

6

(13) 46

(15.75)

Not more than

once month

- 7

(87.5)

1

(12.5) 8

(2.74)

Rarely used - 2

(22.2)

7

(77.8) 9

(3.08)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=27.59, df= 10, t-value at 5% = 18.3



117

Further, the table reveals that 26.02% of the respondents who said that they use

their cards 6-10 times in a month, 61.8% were service people, 27.6% were professionals

and 10.5% were business class people. The result also shows that some respondents

(17) use once or rarely use their cards, among them were only servicemen and

professionals. Business class people who possess plastic money reported use of their

cards atleast once to twice a month. This is evident that service people are regular users

of plastic money, followed by professionals and then businessmen who prefer using

mostly other means of payment apart from plastic money. The chi-square value of

responses on the occupational basis for the frequency of card usage is significant at 5%

level of significance. Hence, it is also clear from the analysis usage frequency of service

class is more as compared to professional or business class people.

It is inferred from above analysis that frequency of card usage is being affected

by gender, income and occupational level. As the males counterparts are having more

cards than the female ones and they spend more by cards than the females whereas the

persons having fixed and regular income are likely to spend more on purchasing the

goods. The age and educational qualification does not seem to affect the frequency for

using the cards.

5.5 Monthly Spending on Cards

From this perspective, the actual amount spent will be important apart from the

frequency. The users may use the cards in purchasing small quantity of goods which

may become significant in spending. Customer trust on the card providers and brand

will determine the amount spent on the cards. This section will try to analyse the

monthly spending on cards from different perspective.

5.5.1 Monthly Spending on Cards (Age-wise)

This section analyses the monthly spending on card from the age perspective,

the result for monthly spending on card is shown Table No. 5.5.1


118

Table 5.5.1 Monthly spending on cards (Age-wise)


<5000 40

(52.6)

27

(35.5)

9

(11.8) 76

(26.02)

Rs. 5001 to

Rs. 15000

53

(35.3)

77

(51.3)

20

(13.3) 150

(51.36)

Rs. 15001 to

Rs. 30000

14

(23.7)

33

(55.9)

12

(20.3) 59

(20.20)

More than Rs.30000 2

(28.6)

4

(57.1)

1

(14.3) 7

(2.39)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=13.59 df= 6, t-value at 5% = 12.6


Table 5.5.1 shows that the majority of the card users (51.36%) belong to the

group who spend Rs. 5001-Rs. 15,000, followed by the second group which spend less

than Rs. 5000. This shows that more than 75% of the respondents spend less than Rs.

15,000 in a month by cards. This spending is considerably low when comparing it with

the developed countries. Further, the table shows that only 20.20% reported that they

spend between Rs. 15,001 to Rs. 30,000. From the age-wise perspective, among the

majority of the respondents who reported that they spend between 5001 to 15,000,

51.3% were between the age of 31-45 years, 35.3% were less 30 years and 13.3% were

more than 46 years of age. Among those who reported that they spend less than Rs.

5000 a month, 52.6% were less than 30 years, 35.5% were between the age of 31-45

and 11.8% were at the age of 46 and above.

The table also indicates that 2.39% of respondents in the category of spending

more than Rs. 30,000, 85% of respondents were less than 45 years of age. The result

indicates that card users do not spend much through the cards in a month. This may be

interpreted that still cash is king even in the presence of plastic money. Also, it may be

due to the less number of merchant establishments who accept the cards at different

shopping malls and terminals. Inferential statistics for the monthly spending on card for

the age-wise category is significant at 5% level of significance. It was found that there


119

was an association between the age and monthly spending on card. Hence, majority of

young middle aged people spend more as compared to other groups.

5.5.2 Monthly Spending on Cards (Gender-wise)

When respondents were asked to indicate the amount spent in using cards,

majority (51.36%) indicated that they spend Rs. 5000 to 15,000 in a month. Among the

respondents who said this, 79.3% were males and 20.7% were females.

Table 5.5.2 Monthly spending on cards (Gender-wise)


<5000 55

(72.4)

21

(27.6) 76

(26.02)

Rs. 5000 to 15000 119

(79.3)

31

(20.7) 150

(51.36)

Rs. 15001 to 39000 47

(79.7)

12

(20.3) 59

(20.20)

More than Rs.

30000

5

(71.4)

2

(28.6) 7

(2.39)

Total 226

(77.4)

66

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=1.74, df= 3, t- value at 5% = 7.81


Among 26.02% of the respondents who spend less than Rs. 5000 per month,

72.4% were males and 27.6% were females. The result also shows that 20.20% of the

respondents who spend between Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000 ,79.7% were males and

20.3% were females. Few respondents said that they spend more than Rs. 30,000 a

month through plastic money and the majority who do this spending 71.4% were males.

The chi-square value of responses on the monthly spending on card from the gender

perspective is insignificant at 5% level of significance. It was found that there was a

weak association between the gender and monthly spending on card. It can be

concluded that there was no difference between the monthly spending on card by males

and females.

5.5.3 Monthly Spending on Cards (Income-wise)

Different income groups may have the different spending pattern. From income

perspective, monthly spending on card by different income group, the result is as

follow:


120

Table 5.5.3 Monthly spending on cards (Income-wise)

Variable Up to

Rs.20000

20001-60000 60001-

100000

Above

Rs.100000

Total

Rs. <5000 36

(47.4)

30

(39.5)

9

(11.8)

1

(1.3)

76

(26.02)

Rs. 5001-15000 34

(22.7)

96

(64)

15

(10)

5

(3.3)

150

(51.36)

15001-30000 5

(8.5)

29

(49.2)

24

(40.7)

1

(1.7)

59

(20.20)

> Rs. 30000 - 4

(57.1)

2

(28.6)

1

(14.3)

7

(2.39)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=58.73, df= 9, t-value at 5% = 16.9


Table 5.5.3 shows how respondents spend using their cards. It was clear that out

of the total respondents, 51.36% spend between Rs. 5001-15,000, followed by those

who spend less than Rs. 5000 and then those who spend between Rs. 15001 to 30,000.

26.02% of those who spend less than Rs. 5000, majority of them earn less than Rs.

20,000, followed by those who earn between Rs. 20,001-60,000, Rs. 60,001 to 100,000

and lastly those who earn Rs. 100,000 and above. Also among those who spend

between Rs. 5000-15,000 majority (64.0%) were users who earn between Rs. 20,001-

60,000, followed by those who earn upto Rs. 20,000. 20.20% of those who spend

between Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000, majority belong to the class of users who earn Rs.

20,001-60,000, followed by 40.7% who earn between Rs. 60,000-100,000 and 8.5%

were those who earn less then Rs. 20,000. Among the class of people who spend above

Rs. 30,000, majority were those who earn between Rs. 20,001 to less than Rs. 100,000.

The result shows that medium income earners spend between Rs. 5000-30,000 as low

income class don’t spend much using cards. The chi-square value of responses on the

monthly spending on card from income perspective is positively co-related and

significant at 5% level of significance which shows that with the increase in the income

level of users there is tendency to spend more from the card because of the strong

association between the given attributes.


121

5.5.4 Monthly Spending on Cards (Education- wise)

From education perspective, monthly spending on card usage is shown in table 5.5.4

Table 5.5.4 Monthly spending on cards (Education– wise)


Rs. <5000 50

(65.8)

24

(31.6)

2

(2.6) 76

(26.02)

Rs.5000 to

Rs. 15000

59

(39.3)

87

(58)

4

(2.7) 150

(51.36)

Rs. 15000 to

Rs. 30000

20

(33.9)

35

(59.3)

4

(6.8) 59

(20.20)

More than

Rs. 30000

4

(57.1)

2

(28.6)

1

(14.3) 7

(2.39)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=22.89, df= 6, t- value at 5% =12.6


Table 5.5.4 indicates the spending pattern of different classes of card users who

possess different qualifications. The table reveals that majority (51.36%) of the

respondents spend between Rs. 5000 to Rs. 15000 and among them, 58% were post

graduates and 39.3% were graduates. Also, out of those who spend less than Rs. 5000,

65.8% were graduates, 31.6% were post graduates and 2.6% did not specify their

qualifications. Further, it is revealed that 59.3% of those who said that they spend

between Rs. 15000 to 30,000 were post graduates, 33.9% were graduates and 6.8% did

not specify their qualifications. This result confirms that majority of card users spend

less than Rs. 15000 a month and many of do not have confidence of spending much on

the cards. This perhaps might be due to the less number of traders accepting cards or

technical problems related to cards and branch restrictions on card usage. The chi-

square value of responses on monthly spending on card from education-wise variable is

positively co-related and significant at 5% level of significance. Hence it is proved that

people with good educational background are sought to use more from the plastic

money. This may be easy for the highly qualified people to manage their funds more

wisely as compared to other groups.


122

5.5.5 Monthly Spending on Cards (Occupation - wise)

From occupation perspective, monthly spending on card is shown in table 5.5.5

Table 5.5.5 Monthly spending on cards (Occupation -wise)


Rs. < 5000 14

(18.4)

44

(57.9)

18

(23.7)

76

(26.02)

Rs. 5001-15000 19

(12.7)

98

(65.3)

33

(22)

150

(51.36)

Rs. 15001,-

30000

10

(16.9)

35

(59.3)

14

(23.7)

59

(20.20)

> Rs. 30000 1

(14.3)

2

(28.6)

4

(57.1)

7

(2.39)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=6.58, df= 6, t- value at 5% = 12.6


Table 5.5.5 shows the monthly spending pattern of respondents on the basis of

their occupation. It is evident that majority (51.36%) of respondents spend between Rs.

5001 to 15,000 in a month. Among this group, 65.3% were service class, 22% were

professionals and 12.7% were business people. Also, 26.02% of those who said that

they spend less than Rs. 5000 in a month, 57.9% were service class, 23.7% were

professionals and 18.4% were business people. Further, among the respondents who

reported that they spend more than Rs. 30,000 a month, majority (57.1%) were

professionals and 14.3% were business people. The study indicates that service men

who earn 5001-15000 spend more on card as compared to professional and business

people. The chi-square value of responses is significant at 5% level of significance. This

shows that monthly spending on card is not affected by the occupation of the person but

the different perception they hold on the usage of plastic money.

It was revealed from the above analysis that age, qualification and income level

have the association with monthly spending on card whereas gender and occupation

level are the independent variables and not associated with monthly spending on cards.


123

5.6 Making Payment of Credit Card Bills

Cards users decide to make payments in different patterns. Some make

payments up to the minimum required, some pay full payment within grace period and

some beyond grace period. This section try to analyses from different parameters the

behaviour of the respondents for making the payment. The results are presented here

below:

5.6.1 Making Payment of Credit Card Bills (Age–wise)

Different age group users make payment on credit card in diverse way. The

result from age perspective for the payment of credit card bill is shown in table 5.6.1.

Table 5.6.1 shows that 63.35% of the respondents prefer making full payment

within the grace period, 10.96% make payment on fixed amount each month, greater

than the minimum required. Only 13.01% and 4.79% indicated that they make payment

more than minimum required and full payment beyond grace period respectively.

Table 5.6.1 Payment of credit card bills (Age – wise)

Variable <30 years 31-45 years 746 years Total

Minimum balance required 14

(60.9)

8

(34.8)

1

(4.3) 23

(7.87)

More than minimum required 20

(52.6)

16

(42.1)

2

(5.3) 38

(13.01)

Fixed amount each month, greater

than minimum required

12

(37.5)

14

(43.8)

6

(18.8) 32

(10.96)

Full payment within grace period 58

(31.4)

95

(51.4)

32

(17.3) 185

(63.35)

Full payment beyond grace period 5

(35.7)

8

(57.1)

1

(7.1) 14

(4.79)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=15.31, df= 8, t-value at 5% = 15.5


Similarly, out the total respondents who reported that they make full payment

within the grace period, majority (51.4%) were between the age of 31-45 years and

31.4% were less than 30 years. Also, those who indicated that they make fixed amount

each month, greater than minimum required, majority (52.6%) belong to the age group

less then 30 years and 42.1% aged between 31-45 years. Inferential statistics shows that


124

there is no association between age and payment of credit card bills at 5 percent level of

significance. It can be concluded that pattern of bill payment is not affected by age, but

with some other attribute.

5.6.2 Making Payments on Credit Card Bills (Gender – wise)

Different card users have various ways of making payment on credit card bills.

From the gender prospective, it was indicated in Table 5.6.2 that, among those who

make payment up to the minimum balance required, majority (60.9%) were male and

the rest female.

Table 5.6.2 Payments of credit card bills (Gender – wise)


Minimum balance required 14

(60.9)

9

(39.1)

23

(7.87)

More than minimum required 25

(65.8)

13

(34.2)

38

(13.01)

Fixed amount each month, Greater


25

(78.1)

7

(21.9)

32

(10.96)

Full payment within Grace period 150

(81.1)

35

(18.9)

185

(63.35)

Full Payment beyond grace period 12

(85.7)

2

(14.3)

14

(4.79)

Total 226

(77.4)

66

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=8.52, df= 4, t- value at 5% =9.49


The overall result indicated that 63.35% people make full payment within the

grace period required and among them, only 81.1% where males and 18.9% were

female. Further, it was indicated that those who make payment more than minimum

required majority (65.8%) were males and 34.2% were females. The chi-square value of

responses for the payment of credit card bills is insignificant at 5% level of significance.

Hence, it is proved that both males and females pay their dues within time, there is no

difference in making the bill payment on gender basis.


125

5.6.3 Making Payment on Credit Card Bills (Income – wise)

Different card users make payments on credit card in diverse ways. Table 5.6.3

shows the result indicating how different income classes make payments on credit card.

Table 5.6.3 Payment on credit card bills (Income – wise)

Variable Upto

Rs.20000

20001-60000 60001-

100000

Above

Rs.10000

Total

Minimum Balance

required

10

(43.5)

13

(56.5)

- - 23

(7.87)

More than minimum

Balance

15

(39.5)

19

(50)

4

(10.5)

- 38

(13.01)

Fixed amount greater


9

(28.1)

19

(59.4)

4

(12.5)

- 32

(10.96)

Full payment within

grace period

38

(20.5)

100

(54.1)

39

(21.1)

8

(4.3) 185

(63.35)

Full payment beyond the

grace period

3

(21.4)

8

(57.1)

3

(21.4)

- 14

(4.79)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=19.82, df= 12, t-value at 5% = 19.7


It is clear from the table that the majority of the respondents make full payment

within the grace period. Out of them 54.1% earn Rs. 20,001-60,000, 21.1% earn Rs.

60,001-100,000 and 4.3% earn above Rs. 100,000. Among those who reported that they

make payment upto the minimum required majority (65.5%) earn Rs. 20,000-60,000

and 43.5% earn less than Rs. 20,000.

Also, the result indicated that among those who make payment more than the

minimum balance required, majority (50%) earn between Rs. 20,001-60,000, followed

by those who earn upto Rs. 20,000. The result confirms that many users like making

payments within period required which means that the users always do not like to

increase liabilities on using their cards. The chi-square value of responses on the

income-wise variable for the payment of bills is insignificant at 5% level of

significance. This shows that person with the fixed and regular income has no hesitation

to pay their dues within time, because they does not like to increase their liabilities.


126

5.6.4 Making Payment on Credit Card Bills (Education – wise)

From education perspective, the results are shown in table no. 5.6.4.

Respondents were asked to indicate on how they make their payments on credit card

bills. Study shows that majority (63.35%) of the respondents make full amount of

payment within the grace period. Among them, 51.9% were post graduates, 45.9% were

graduates and 2.2% did not specify their qualifications.

Table 5.6.4 Payment on credit card bills (Education – wise)


Minimum balance

required

11

(47.8)

10

(43.5)

2

(8.7)

23

(7.87)

More than minimum

required

17

(44.7)

18

(47.4)

3

(7.9)

38

(13.01)

Fixed amount each

month, Greater than

minimum required

17

(53.1)

14

(43.8)

1

(3.1)

32

(10.96)

Full amount within

grace period.

85

(45.9)

96

(51.9)

4

(2.2)

185

(63.35)

Full payment beyond

grace period

3

(21.4)

10

(71.4)

1

(7.1)

14

(4.79)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=9.02, df= 8, t- value at 5% = 15.5


Also 10.96% of those who said that they make fixed amount of payment each

month, more than the minimum required, 53.1% were graduates, 43.87% were post

graduates and 3.1% did not specify their qualification. Further, it is revealed that among

those who said that they make payment upto minimum payment required, 43.5% were

post graduates, 47.8% wee graduates and 8.7% did not specify. This result shows that

qualification also matters when it comes to matters related to payment pattern of card

users. The chi-square value of responses on education –wise for making the payment of

dues is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Hence, people with or without good

education do not make a difference in making the dues clear within time.


127

5.6.5 Making Payment of Credit Card Bills (Occupation – wise)

Different card users make payments in numerous ways. Table 5.6.5 indicates

that majority (63.35%) of the respondents make full payment within grace period. This

means that they do not like liabilities to stand as unnecessary tension.

Table 5.6.5 Payment on credit card bills (Occupation – wise)


Minimum balance

required

2

(8.7)

11

(47.8)

10

(43.5)

23

(7.87)

More than minimum

required

4

(10.5)

26

(68.4)

8

(21.1)

38

(13.01)

Fixed amount each

month greater the

minimum required

6

(18.8)

18

(56.3)

8

(25)

32

(10.96)

Full payment within

grace period

29

(15.7)

114

(61.6)

42

(22.7)

185

(63.35)

Full payment

beyond the grace

period

3

(21.4)

10

(71.4)

1

(7.10)

14

(4.79)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=8.86, df= 8, t- value at 5% = 15.5


Among those who reported so, 61.6% were service class, 22.7% were

professionals and 15.7% were business class. Among those who make fixed amount

each month greater than minimum included 56.3% service people, 25% professionals

and 18.8% business people. Also 4.79% of those who make full payment beyond the

grace period, 71.4% were service class, 21.4% were business people and 7.10% were

professionals. This result shows that perhaps service class make payment with great

caution as they need not to be liable to balances later. The chi-square value of responses

for making the payment on occupational basis is insignificant at 5% level of

significance. This shows occupation does not affect the behaviour of the person to make

the bill payments.


128

It can be concluded that all the variables (age, gender, income, qualification and

occupation)do not affect the making payment of credit card bills. Perhaps, this was

affected by behavior of the person to make the payments.

5.7 Carrying of Revolving Balance

In this section, respondents were asked to indicate if they carry revolving

balance while using their credit cards. The card users carry revolving balance in

different patterns which is as follow.

5.7.1 Carrying of Revolving Balance (Age – wise)

The researcher sought to know from different age group whether they carry the

revolving balance or not. The result presented on table no. 5.7.1.From Table, it is

clearly indicated that majority (44.17%) of the respondents indicated that they never

carry revolving balance, 18.49% reported that they seldom carry revolving balance,

Further, 25.68% of the total respondents indicated that they frequently carry revolving

balance and only 11.64% of the total respondents indicated that they always carry such

balance.

Table 5.7.1 Carrying of Revolving Balance (Age – wise)


Never 41

(31.8)

61

(47.3)

27

(20.9) 129

(44.17)

Seldom 26

(48.1)

23

(42.6)

5

(9.30) 54

(18.49)

Frequently 30

(40)

40

(53.3)

5

(6.7) 75

(25.68)

Always 12

(35.3)

17

(50)

5

(14.7) 34

(11.64)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=11.68, df= 6 , t- value at 5% = 12.6


From the age perspective, majority of those who reported that they never carry

such balance were between the age of 31-45 years (47.3%). Also, 31.2% were less than

30 years of age. Among those who seldom carry their balances majority (48.1%) were

less than 30 years of age and 42.6% were between 31-45 years. This indicates that


129

younger card users seldom carry the balances while middle aged never carry revolving

balances when using their plastic money. Among those respondents who said that they

carry their revolving balance always, majority (50%) were of the age between 31-45

years and 35.37% were less than 30 years. Inferential statistics shows that the age has

the insignificant relationship with carrying of revolving balance at 5% level of

significance. It is clear from the analysis all the age groups respondents do not like to

carry their revolving balance as it is likely to increase their liabilities in future.

5.7.2 Carrying of Revolving Balance (Gender – wise)

Respondents from gender wise may have the different perception for carrying of

revolving balance. To analyses from this perspective the results are presented in table

no.5.7.2

Table 5.7.2 Carrying of revolving balance (Gender – wise)


Never 106

(82.2)

23

(17.8)

129

(44.17)

Seldom 33

(61.1)

21

(38.9)

54

(18.49)

Frequently 55

(73.3)

20

(26.7)

75

(25.68)

Always 32

(94.1)

2

(5.9)

15

(7.5)

Total 226

(77.4)

66

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=16.01, df= 3, t- value at 5% = 7.81


Table 5.7.2 shows that 44.17% of the respondents who said that they never carry

revolving balance, 82.2% were males and 17.8% were females. Also majority (61.1%)

of those who said that they seldom carry revolving balance were males and only 38.9%

were females. 25.68% of those who carry revolving balance frequently, 73.3% were

males and 26.7% were females. 94.1% male respondents said that they always carry

revolving balance. This means that female respondents seldom carry revolving balance.

The chi-square value of responses for carrying of revolving balance is significant but


130

negatively co-related at 5% level of significance. This shows both the males and

females never or seldom carry the revolving balance as both do not like liabilities.

5.7.3 Carrying of revolving balance (Income – wise)

To carry the revolving balance in the account may be on the income of the

respondents. Here, in this section researcher want to observe from different income

group their behaviour for carrying the revolving balance. The result are presented here

below:

Table 5.7.3 Carrying of revolving balance (Income – wise)

Variable Up to

Rs.20000

20001-

60000

60001-

100000

Above

Rs.100000

Total

Never 26

(20.2)

67

(51.9)

29

(22.5)

7

(5.4) 129

(44.17)

Seldom 19

(35.2)

25

(46.3)

10

(18.5)

- 54

(18.49)

Frequently 19

(25.3)

48

(64)

8

(10.7)

- 75

(25.68)

Always 11

(32.4)

19

(55.9)

3

(8.8)

1

(2.9) 34

(11.64)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=18.46, df= 9, t-value at 5% and 1% level = 16.9 and 21.7


Table 5.7.3 shows that card users carry revolving balance in different patterns

from income-wise perspective. It is indicated that 44.17% of the respondents never

carry revolving balance when using plastic cards. Among those who said that they never

carry revolving balance, 51.9% earn between Rs. 20,001 to 60,000, 22.5% earn Rs.

60,001 to Rs. 100,000 and 20.2% earn less than Rs. 20,000. Also, it was indicated that

among those who reported that they seldom carry revolving balance, 46.3% earn

between Rs. 20,001-60,000 and 35.2% upto Rs. 20,000, only 18.5% earn between Rs.

60,001-Rs. 100,000. 25.68% of those who said that they frequently carry revolving

balance, 64% earn between Rs. 20,001-60,000 and 25.3% earn less than Rs. 20,000.

This result confirms that majority of card users never or seldom carry revolving

balance. The calculated chi-square value is 18.46 which is more than the t value at 5

percent level. The chi-square value of responses on the income basis of users is


131

significant but negatively co-related at 5% level of significance. This shows that their

perception for carrying of revolving balance is strongly associated with the income and

increase in income level definitely decrease their liabilities.

5.7.4 Carrying of revolving balance (Education – wise)

From education perspective, result for carrying of revolving balance is presented

in Table 5.7.4

Table 5.7.4 Carrying of revolving balance (Education – wise)


Never 62

(48.1)

64

(49.6)

3

(2.3) 129

(44.17)

Seldom 30

(55.6)

22

(40.7)

2

(3.7) 54

(18.49)

Frequently 25

(33.3)

44

(58.7)

6

(8) 75

(25.68)

Always 16

(47.1)

18

(52.9)

-

- 34

(11.64)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=11.46, df= 6, t- value at 5% = 12.6


Table 5.7.4 indicates that majority (44.17%) of the respondents never carry

revolving balance when using their plastic money. Among those who said that they

never carry revolving balance, 49.6% were post graduates, and 48.1% were graduates.

18.49% of those who said that they seldom carry revolving balance, 55.6% were

graduates and 40.7% were post graduates. Out of those who frequently carry revolving

balance majority (58.7%) were post graduates, 33.3% graduates and 8% did not specify

their qualification. Also, among those who said that they always carry revolving

balance, 52.9% were post graduates and 47.1% were graduates. The overall result

shows that majority of post graduates respondents never carry revolving balance. This

might be because of the rules given by their card providers or they do not like carrying

this balance. The calculated chi-square value is 11.46 which is less than table value. The

chi-square value of responses on the educational basis is insignificant at 5% level of

significance. This shows that the education of the person does not affect his perception

for carrying the revolving balance.


132

5.7.5 Carrying of Revolving Balance (Occupation – wise)

Different occupational group may have the different perception for carrying of

revolving balance. From this perspective, the result is presented on table no.5.7.5. When

the respondents were asked to indicate if they carry revolving balance while using their

credit cards, the majority (44.17%) reported that they never carry revolving balances

when using plastic money. This was evidenced by 55.8% of services class, 26.4% of

professional class and 17.8% of business class who said that they never carry revolving

balance. 18.4% of those who said that they seldom carry revolving balance, 59.3% of

them were service people, 25.9% were professionals and 14.8% were business class.

Table 5.7.5 Carrying of revolving balance (Occupation – wise)


Never 23

(17.8)

72

(55.8)

34

(26.4) 129

(44.17)

Seldom 8

(14.8)

32

(59.3)

14

(25.9) 54

(18.49)

Frequently 10

(13.3)

51

(68)

14

(18.7) 75

(25.68)

Always 3

(8.8)

24

(70.6)

7

(20.6) 34

(11.64)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=4.82, df= 6, t-value at 5% = 12.6


The table further indicates that 68% of those who said that they frequently carry

revolving balance were service people, 18.7% were professionals and 13.3% were

business class.

11.64% of those who said that they always a carry a revolving balance, 20.6%

were professionals, 70.6% were service people and 8.8% were business class. This

result confirms that majority of card users in India never carry revolving balance. The

chi-square value of responses on the occupational basis is insignificant at 5% level of

significance. This shows that the occupation of the person has no relation with carrying

of revolving balance in his account because of the weak association between the given

attributes.


133

It can be concluded from the above analysis that age, qualification and

occupation have insignificant relationship with carrying of revolving balance whereas

gender and income are associated with carrying of revolving balance because the males

who are working and having good income do not like the liabilities

5.8 Misuse of Card

Plastic money usage is affected by unethical practices of the fraudsters or other

parties without the consent of users. The aim of this section was to observe whether the

card users were trapped by fraudster or not how safely they keep their cards. The plastic

money users were asked to indicate whether their cards were misused or not. The

analysis was done from different parameters which are as follow:

5.8.1 Misuse of Card (Age – wise)

The opinion from age wise may reveal, whether any particular age group is more

affected by the ethical practices of fraudsters or not. The result from age perspective, on

the misuse of card is indicated in table 5.8.1. From the table, it is clear that majority of

the respondents (93.49%) said that their cards have never been misused and only 6.51%

said that their cards have been misused. This indicates that the Indian card users are

keen in using their own plastic money and they always adhere to the rules issued by

their card providers and RBI respectively.

Table 5.8.1 Misuse of Card (Age – wise)


Yes 5

(26.3)

5

(26.3)

9

(47.4) 19

(6.51)

No 104

(38.1)

136

(49.8)

33

(12.1) 273

(93.49)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

273

(93.49)

χχχχ2=18.16, df= 2, t- value at 5% =


From perspective of age, among those who said that their cards have never been

misused 49.8% were at the age between 31-45 years, 38.1% were less than 30 years.

Also, among those who indicated that their cards have been misused, 47.4% belong to


134

the age more than 46 years. This means that the old card users are vulnerable to card

misuse as against young users who seem to be careful. The chi-square value of

responses for the misuse of card from age perspective is significant but negatively

associated at 5% level of significance. This shows that the aged people are more

vulnerable to card misuse as compared to younger and middle aged persons.

5.8.2 Misuse of Card (Gender – wise)

From gender perspective, the opinion about the misuse of card is presented in

table 5.8.2

Table 5.8.2 Misuse of card (Gender – wise)


Yes 16

(84.2)

3

(15.8) 19

(6.51)

No 210

(76.9)

63

(23.1) 273

(93.49)

Total 226

(77.4)

66

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=.54, df= 1 t-value at 5% = 3.84


From the gender perspective, table 5.8.2 indicates that among the majority

(93.49%) who said that their cards have never been misused, 76.9% were males and

23.1% were females. 6.51% those who accepted that their cards have been misused,

majority were (84.2%) males and 15.8% were females. This indicates in both cases

majority of them are careful and take the instructions seriously from their card

providers. The chi-square value of responses for the misuse of cards from gender

perspective is insignificant at 5% level of significance. It can be concluded that

fraudsters do not make the difference between the gender when they are going to misuse

the card. Hence, card misuse is not affected on the basis of gender.

5.8.3 Misuse of card (Income – wise)

The misuse of card can lead to heavy losses to card users. The respondents from

income wise were asked to indicate if their card has been ever misused. The result is

presented in table 5.8.3


135

Table 5.8.3 Misuse of card (Income – wise)

Variable Up to

Rs.20,000

Rs. 20,001-

60,000

Rs. 60,001-

1,00,000

Above

Rs.1,00,000

Total

Yes 5

(26.3)

7

(36.8)

7

(36.8)

- 19

(6.51)

No 70

(25.6)

152

(55.7)

43

(15.8)

8

(2.9) 273

(93.49)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=6.33, df= 3, t-value at 5% = 7.81


It is clear from the table that majority of the respondents indicated that their

cards have never been misused. Among them, majority (55.7%) earns between Rs.

20,001-60,000, 25.6% earn less than Rs. 20,000 and 15.8% earn between Rs. 60,001-

100,000. Among those who said that their cards have been misused in one way or the

other majority belong to the class that earn between Rs. 20,001 to 100,000. This result

confirms that the card users are careful and follow all the guidelines they are given or

provided by the card providers at the time when they adopt the cards. The chi-square

value of responses on income basis is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Hence, it

can be concluded that misuse of card is not affected due to the income level rather on

the person how safely he keeps the card.

5.8.4 Misuse of Card (Education–wise)

From educations-wise perspective (Table 5.8.4) it is also indicated that majority

of respondents reported that their cards have never been misused. Among those who

said so, 49.8% were post graduates, 46.9% were graduates and 3.3% did not specify

their qualifications.

Table 5.8.4 Misuse of card (Education – wise)


Yes 5

(26.3)

12

(63.2)

2

(10.5)

19

(6.5)

No 128

(46.9)

136

(49.8)

9

(3.3)

273

(93.49)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=4.74, df= 2, t, value at 5% = 5.99



136

Among those who said that their cards have been misused, 63.2% were post

graduates and 26.3% graduates. This result shows that users in India are careful and

adhere to the instructions they are given and also it might be because they are well

qualified. This can reflect that those who are not well qualified may be vulnerable to

card misuse. The chi-square value of responses on the education of the person is

insignificant and negatively correlated at 5% level of significance. This shows that the

people with good education are less trapped by fraudsters as compared to other groups.

5.8.5 Card Misuse (Occupation – wise)

From occupation wise, the result for misuse of card is presented in table 5.8.5

Table 5.8.5 Card misuse (Occupation – wise)


Yes 5

(26.3)

12

(63.2)

2

(10.5) 19

(6.51)

No 39

(14.3)

167

(61.2)

67

(24.5) 273

(93.49)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=3.19, df= 2, t-value at 5% = 5.99


Table 5.8.5 shows that majority of the` respondents said that their cards have

never been misused in any way. Out of those who reported so, 61.2% were service

class, 24.5% were professionals and 15.1% were business class. Also, among those who

said that their cards were misused in some way, 63.2% were service people, 10.5%

belong to professionals and 26.3% were business class. The overall interpretation shows

that Indian card holders are careful as they strictly follow instructions given at the time

of agreeing plastic money. The chi-square value of responses is insignificant at 5% level

of significance. Because of weak association between the given attributes, misuse of

card is not dependent on the occupation of the person.

It was revealed that only age is affected by misuse of card. It was cleared from

the analysis that older people were more vulnerable to misuse of card as compared to


137

young middle aged one. On the other hand, gender, income, education and occupation

do not affect the card misuse.

5.9 Satisfaction for Legal Protection to Card Holders

Satisfaction of customers on the legal protection is vital as it helps many users to

build trust blocks on the card providers and safety. The customers/card users were

enquired if they are satisfied with the legal protection provided. The aim of this section

was to observe from the respondents for their awareness about the legal protection

provided to them and how much they show their faith and confidence in the legal

system. The analysis from different perspective is as follow:

5.9.1 Satisfaction for Legal Protection to Card Holders (Age – wise)

The researcher sought to know from different age group that which age group is

more satisfied as compared to other group for the legal protection provided to them.

Table 5.9.1 shows the satisfaction for legal protection from age perspective.

Table 5.9.1 Satisfaction for legal Protection (Age – wise)


Yes 22

(44)

20

(40)

8

(16) 50

(17.12)

No 33

(31.9)

52

(49.5)

20

(19) 105

(35.96)


(39.4)

69

(50.4)

14

(10.2) 137

(46.91)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=5.93, df= 4, t- value at 5% = 9.49


35.96% of the respondents said that they are not satisfied with the legal

protection existing currently, majority belong to age group of 31-45 years. 17.12% said

that they are satisfied and among them 44% were less than 30 years, 40% were between

31 to 45 and 16.5% were above 46 years of age. This indicates that young middle aged

people are not satisfied or having some doubts about the legal protection the

government of India is providing towards card users in the country. The inferential

statistics on the satisfaction for legal protection from age perspective is insignificant and

negatively correlated at 5% level of significance. This shows that majority of the


138

respondents have in their minds the satisfaction about the legal protection available to

them.

5.9.2 Satisfaction for Legal Protection to Card Holders (Gender – wise)

The opinions from gender wise may reveal whether male respondents are

satisfied with the legal protection available to them as compared to their counterparts.

Table 5.9.2 shows the satisfaction for legal protection on gender wise.

Table 5.9.2 Satisfaction for legal protection (Gender – wise)


Yes 40

(80)

10

(20) 50

(17.12)

No 84

(80.0)

21

(20) 105

(35.96)


(74.5)

35

(25.3) 137

(46.91)

Total 226

(77.4)

66

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=1.28, df= 2, t- value at 5% = 5.99


Majority (46.91%) of female and male respondents were unable to say exactly

which is a sign of confusion among them, 74.5% were male and 25.5% were females.

Those who said that they are not satisfied with the Indian legal system the result

indicated that majority were males (80.0%) and females respondents comprised only

20%. 17.12% who said that they are satisfied were less in number 50/292 and amongst

them 80% were males and 20% were females. This shows that still card users demand

more reforms in terms of the Indian legal framework. The chi-square value of responses

is insignificant at 5% level of significance. This shows that both the males females are

having doubts about the legal protection available to them as they are not satisfied from

them.

5.9.3 Satisfaction for Legal Protection to Card Holders (Income–wise)

Card users from income wise were asked to report whether they are satisfied

with the legal protection provided to them. The aim of this section was to observe

whether higher income group is more satisfied as compared to lower income group. The

result is indicated in table 5.9.3.


139

Table 5.9.3 Satisfaction for legal protection (Income – wise)

Variable Upto

Rs.20000

20001-60000 60001-100000 Above

Rs.100000

Total

Yes 21

(42)

20

(40)

7

(14)

2

(4) 50

(17.12)

No 21

(20)

53

(50.5)

28

(26.7)

3

(2.9) 105

(35.96)

Can’t say

exactly

33

(24.1)

86

(62.8)

15

(10.9)

3

(2.2) 137

(46.91)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=19.97, df= 6, t- value at 5% = 12.6


Majority of the respondents were unable to say their views about the satisfaction

for the legal protection. Among them 62.8% belongs to the income between Rs. 20,001-

60,000 followed by the income group of Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 60,001-100,000.The result

shows that 35.96% respondents indicated that they are not satisfied with the legal

protection available in Indian legal system. Among them 50.5% reportedly belong to the

class that earn between Rs. 20,001 to 60,000, 26.7% earn between Rs. 60,001 to

100,000 and 20% earn less than Rs. 20,000. Among those (17.12%) who said that they

are satisfied with the protection provided by the Indian legal system, 82% belong to the

class that earn upto Rs. 60,000, 14% earn between Rs. 60,001 to 100,000 and 4% earn

above Rs. 100,000. This shows that less income earners are more satisfied with the legal

protection provided by Indian authorities compared by with high class income earners.

The chi-square value of responses is significant at 5% level of significance. This income

has some association between the given attributes. Hence, people with less income are

more satisfied as compared to higher income group.

5.9.4 Satisfaction for Legal Protection to Card Holders (Education–wise)

Table 5.9.4 shows whether card holders from education wise are satisfied with

legal protection on cards or not. It is clearly revealed that majority of the respondents

are not in a position to express themselves in relation to their satisfaction on legal

protection.


140

Table 5.9.4 Satisfaction for Legal Protection (Education–Wise)


Yes 26

(52)

22

(44)

2

(4)

50

(17.12)

No 39

(37.1)

61

(58.1)

5

(4.8)

105

(35.96)


(49.6)

65

(47.4)

4

(2.9)

137

(46.91)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=4.99, df= 4, t- value at 5% = 9.49


It is clear from the table that that substantial number of respondents are not

satisfied with the legal protection system provided by the Indian authorities. The table

reveals that out of those who said that they are not satisfied with the Indian legal

protection, 58.1% were post graduates, 37.1% were graduates and 4.8% of them did not

specify. Among those who were unable to say, 47.4% were post graduates and 49.6%

were graduates. This indicates that Indian card users have some unspeakable doubts on

the Indian legal system. This signals the reforms in the legal framework in relation to

plastic money. The chi-square value of responses on educational perspective is

insignificant at 5% level of significance. This shows that the education of the person has

no relation with the satisfaction level from legal system.

5.9.5 Satisfaction for Legal Protection to Card Holders (Occupation–wise)

This section analyses the satisfaction for legal protection available to

cardholders from occupation perspective is shown on table no.5.9.5

Table 5.9.5 Satisfaction for legal protection (Occupation – wise)


Yes 4

(80)

32

(64)

14

(28) 50

(17.12)

No 16

(15.2)

65

(61.9)

24

(22.9) 105

(35.96)

Can’t say 24

(17.5)

82

(59.9)

31

(22.6) 137

(46.91)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=2.81, df= 4 , t- value at 5% = 9.49



141

Table 5.9.5 Indicates the responses regarding card holders satisfaction towards

the legal protection provided by Indian authorities. It was clear that majority (46.91%)

of the respondents were unable to say exactly what was in their mind. Among those

who said that they were not satisfied with the legal protection include 61.9% of service

class, 22.9% of professionals and 15.2% of business class people. Among those who

said that they are satisfied 64% were service class, 28% were professionals and 8%

were business class people. The overall result indicates that the card users in India are

not satisfied with the legal protection provided by the Indian authorities. This calls for

reforms in legal protection mechanism to boost the adoption of cards in the country.

The chi-square value of responses for the satisfaction from legal system on occupational

basis is insignificant. Hence, majority of the respondents are unable to say exactly what

they perceive about the satisfaction from legal system.

The result shows that age, gender, occupation and qualification has no relation

with the satisfaction from legal protection. It was indicated that still more reforms are

needed to boost the card adoption because majority of the respondents are not satisfied

as they have some unspeakable doubts in their minds.

5.10 Confusing and Cumbersome Indian Legal System

Different card users argue differently regarding the framework of Indian legal

system. Some say it is confusing and some indicate the different perception. The

customers were asked to agree or disagree with this statement of confusing and

cumbersome of the Indian legal framework. The variables were set to be from agree

disagree and can’t say. The analysis was done from different perspective to know their

actual perception about the Indian legal system.

5.10.1 Confusing and Cumbersome Indian Legal System (Age – wise)

Different age group may have the different opinions about the legal system.

Some respondents from particular age group are confused or some disagree to the

statement. The result from age perspective is presented on table 5.10.1


142

Table 5.10.1 Confusing and cumbersome Indian legal system (Age – wise) Variable 18-30 years 31-45 years 46 years and above Total

Agree 45

(38.8)

45

(38.8)

26

(22.4) 116

(39.73)

Disagree 17

(30.4)

34

(60.7)

5

(8.9) 56

(19.17)

Can’t say Exactly 47

(39.2)

62

(51.7)

11

(9.2) 120

(41.09)

Total 109

(37.3)

141

(48.3)

42

(14.4)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=13.77, df= 4, t- value at 5% = 9.49


It was clear from the table that 39.73% agreed that the Indian legal system is

confusing and cumbersome. Also, among those who agreed, 38.8% each were from less

than 30 years of age and 31-45 years category. 22.4% were above 46 years of age.

Further, it was revealed that majority (41.09%) of the respondents were unable to say

exactly their views regarding this statement, which means they are either confused

already or they are not aware of legal framework. This requires legal education to card

users as it will be important for them to understand their rights available in law. The

chi-square value of responses is significant at 5% level of significance. It indicates that

there is a strong association between the given attributes. Hence, majority of the

respondents are unable to report exactly their views , represents their confusion about

the Indian legal system.

5.10.2 Confusing and Cumbersome Indian Legal System (Gender–wise)

The respondents from gender wise were asked to indicates their level of

statement that Indian legal system is confusing and cumbersome. The results are shown

on table 5.10.2

Table 5.10.2 Confusing and cumbersome Indian legal system (Gender – wise) Variable Male Female Total

Agree 97

(83.6)

19

(16.4)

116

(39.73)

Disagree 41

(73.2)

15

(26.8)

56

(19.17)


(73.3)

32

(26.7)

120

(41.09)

Total 226

(77.4)

6

(22.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=4.26, df= 2, t- value at 5% = 5.99



143

Table 5.10.2 shows that from the perspective of gender, majority of those who

said that they agree that India legal system is confusing, 83.6% were males and 16.4%

were females. Also 73.2% males and 26.8% females disagreed that the Indian legal

system is not confusing. 41.09% respondents were unable to say exactly what was in

their minds regarding the Indian legal system. This shows that still more needs to be

done to enable the plastic card users to access their rights in terms of knowing and not

being confused about the legal framework. The chi-square value of responses is

insignificant at 5% level of significance. It indicates that gender has no association

between with the confusion of the respondents about the legal system. Hence, majority

of the respondents are confused about the legal system.

5.10.3 Confusing and Cumbersome Indian Legal System (Income– wise)

From the perspective of income, majority of the Indian card users agreed that the

Indian legal system is cumbersome and confusing. Also a reasonable member of

respondents (41.09%) reported that they were unable to say what they feel about the

Indian legal system.

Table 5.10.3 Confusing and cumbersome Indian legal system (Income – wise)

Variable Up to

Rs.20000

20001-

60000

60001-

100000

Above

Rs.100000

Total

Agree 30

(25.9)

50

(43.1)

31

(26.7)

5

(4.3) 116

(39.73)

Disagree 20

(35.7)

30

(53.6)

6

(10.7)

- 56

(19.17)

Can’t say

exactly

25

(20.8)

79

(65.8)

13

(10.8)

3

(2.5) 120

(41.09)

Total 75

(25.70)

159

(54.50)

50

(17.10)

8

(2.70)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=21.87, df= 6, t- value at 5% = 12.6


The table shows that among those who agreed, majority (43.1%) earns between

Rs. 20,001 to 60,000, 25.9% and 26.7% earn less than Rs. 20,000 and between Rs.

60,001 to Rs. 100,000 respectively. Only 4.3% of them earn above Rs. 100,000. Also,

among those who said that Indian legal system is not confusing and cumbersome

majority of them earn less than Rs. 60,000. Among those who were unable to say,

majority (65.8%) belong to the class that earn between Rs. 20,001 to 60,000, 20.8%

earn less than Rs. 20,000 and only 2.5% earn above Rs. 100,000. This result indicates


144

that majority of Indian card users need more reforms in the legal system which will

boost their motivation in cards adoption. The calculated chi-square value of responses

from income perspective is significant but negatively correlated to each other. Hence,

income has some association with the confusion of the respondents but higher income

group seems to be less confused about the legal system.

5.10.4 Confusing and Cumbersome Indian Legal System (Education–wise)

Education of card user is being the vital parameter. This analysis sought to find

out if there exists any disparity among the educated people for their confusion about the

legal system than the less educated people. From education perspective, the result is

presented on table no.5.10.4

Table 5.10.4 Confusing and cumbersome Indian legal system (Education – wise)


Agree 51

(44)

61

(52.6)

4

(3.4)

116

(39.73)

Disagree 23

(41.1)

32

(57.1)

1

(1.8)

56

(19.17)


(49.2)

55

(45.8)

6

(5)

120

(41.09)

Total 133

(45.5)

148

(50.7)

11

(3.8)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=2.86, df= 4, t- value at 5% = 9.49


Respondents indicated their agreement level based on the legal system which is

confusing and cumbersome. Majority of them reportedly said that they agree with the

statement that Indian legal system is confusing and cumbersome. Out of those, who

agreed 52.6% were post graduates and 44% were graduates.

Also, it was revealed that among those who were unable to say exactly, 45.8%

were post graduates and 49.2% were graduates. This confirms that respondents with

better education were able to recognize the impurities of the Indian legal system. The

chi-square value of responses from education perspective is insignificant at 5% level of

significance. Hence, confusion of the respondents is not affected by good educational


145

background. It is concluded here that majority of the respondents are in favors of

protection available to them.

5.10.5 Confusing and Cumbersome Indian Legal System. (Occupation– wise)

The respondents on occupation wise were asked to indicate their agreement

level on the statement that the Indian legal system is confusing and cumbersome.

Table 5.10.5 Confusing and cumbersome Indian legal system (Occupation – wise)


Agree 18

(15.5)

63

(54.3)

35

(30.2) 116

(39.73)

Disagree 4

(7.1)

41

(73.2)

11

(19.6) 56

(19.17)


(18.3)

75

(62.5)

23

(19.2) 120

(41.09)

Total 44

(15.1)

179

(61.3)

69

(23.6)

292

(100)

χχχχ2=8.94, df= 4, t- value at 5% = 9.49


The result indicated that the majority (41.09%) of the respondents viewed that

they were unable to comment on the statement. This might be because they feel

complications about the legal system or they are confused about the way the system is

wholly set up and working. Out of those who said that they agree, 54.3% were service

class people, 30.2% were professionals and 15.5% were businessmen. For those who

disagreed, 73.2% were service people, 19.6% were professionals and 7.1% were of

business class. It is still revealed that more restructuring and reforms will return the

confidence of card users if they are initiated. The calculated chi-square value of

responses is insignificant at 5% level of significance. Hence, majority of the

respondents from all occupational groups are confused about the Indian legal system.

5.11 Factors Influencing Plastic Money Adoptions

The adoption of recent plastic money has shown spectacular performance and

many adopters of plastic money are expected in future. This adoption has some

antecedents which usually called for some strong point to boost the adopters decision of

adopting plastic money. The respondents were asked to indicate the most important


146

factors influencing them in adoption of cards and their brands. The respondents gave

their preference which is presented below.

5.11.1 Factors Influencing Card Choice

Statement indicates the various factors given which include convenience, status

symbol, brand, acceptability, interest rate and others. The customers were asked to give

the preferences against the most important factors influencing their card choices.

Table 5.11.1 Factors influencing card choice

Sr.

No.

Variable Rank W.A.M F value Sig.

1. Convenience 1 11.01 4.37 .014

2. Status Symbol 7 6.48 11.94 0

3. Credit Card Brand 5 7.17 3.08 .048

4. Acceptability 2 9.04 0.81 .0448

5. Interest rate 3 8.20 2.11 .0124

6. Distribution Network 4 7.76 3.51 .032

7. Bank Staff Recommendation 11 4.23 3.73 .026

8. Peer Feed Back 9 4.33 4.49 .012

9. Free Credit Period 6 6.59 0.68 .51

10. Credit Limit 8 4.77 4.96 .008

11. Annual fees 10 4.30 4.55 .012

12. Transaction fees 12 4.14 7.11 .001

Table 5.11.1 shows that convenience was ranked number one factor influencing

the card choice. This is depicted by the weighted average mean (WAM) of 11.01. This

was followed by acceptability of the card. If the card is accepted by many traders, it

becomes a strong point to consider while adapting plastic money. Also, the interest rate

factor was ranked third (WAM 8.20) as one of the important factor influencing the

choice to adopt a particular type of card. Distribution network was ranked fourth by

card users as the vital factor considered before adopting a card type. Brand was ranked

number fifth and free credit period is next important factors. Among those factors which

were considered less important include transaction fee (Twelfth rank), Bank staff

recommendation (Eleventh rank) and annual fee (Tenth rank). These factors seem to be

less considered when card users are making decisions of the type of card they adopt.


147

The ANOVA result indicates that status symbol and transaction fees were statistically

significant.

5.11.2 Factors Influencing Particular Brand of Cards

Table 5.11.2 Factors influencing particular brand of cards

Sr.

No.

Variable Rank W.A.M F-value Sig.

1. Joining Fees 7 8.475 .38 .682

2. Annual Fees 6 8.485 .18 .837

3. Transaction Fees 4 8.835 2.60 .077

4. Insurance Fees 9 6.795 0.16 .857

5. Interest Fees 3 9.090 7.11 .001

6. Free Credit Period 2 9.095 .97 .381

7. Add on card facility 8 6.880 .98 .377

8. Distribution Network 5 8.655 1.904 .152

9. Acceptability 1 9.44 .15 .863

10. Benefits offered by credit card Agency. 10 6.165 .78 .461

11. Convinced by direct selling associates 11 3.450 1.99 .14

12. Influenced by advertisement on TV. 12 2.860 3.11 .047

13. Influenced by advertisement in print

media.

13 2.775 .64 .527

The respondents were asked to indicate the factors influencing their brand

choices, it was revealed that acceptability was the most important factor influencing

them in making decision. Free credit period (WAM 9.095) was ranked 2nd and interest

fees (W.A.M. 9.090) was ranked third factor influencing card users in choosing their

brands. The factors which were regarded less important in brand selection include

advertisement on T.V. (W.A.M. 2.8), convinced by direct selling associates (3.5) and

benefits offered by card agency (6.165) were ranked 12th, 11

th and 10

th respectively. The

statistical significance was released on factor influence by advertisement on TV and

Interest fees which difference in variable. The overall result shows that there is no much

difference between factors for card and brand choice.


148

5.12 Spending Pattern on Purchases

Card users spend differently on different items. A list of items was provided to

respondents who indicated on how they spend on various listed items. The aim of this

section was to observe the respondents preference on various item for spending through

cards.

Table 5.12 Spending pattern on purchases

Sr.

No.

Variable Rank W.A.M F value Sig.

1. Groceries 1 5.45 3.46 .033

2. Restaurant bill payments 2 5.4 .51 .6

3. Consumer Durables 5 4.555 .56 .57

4. Electronic 6 4.315 .30 .738

5. Cash Withdrawn through ATM 3 4.965 3.68 .027

6. Hotel accommodation 8 2.94 0.48 .619

7. Airlines/railway tickets 7 3.595 1.07 .344

8. Clothing and Jewellery 4 4.78 .20 .816

Table 5.12 shows that groceries spending was ranked first, followed by

restaurant bills payment and cash withdrawals. This shows that majority of card users

use their cards in purchasing small items from shops and super markets and use it in

hotels and restaurants. Some other places where cards are used include clothing and

jewellery which was ranked number 4th and 5

th respectively it was further revealed that

respondents use their cards rarely to pay for hotel accommodation and airline/railway

tickets. This might be because cards users either do like using other means of payment

when purchasing their tickets and may be cash when paying for hotel accommodation.

Also, it might be that not many hotels and ticket agents accept payments through cards.

5.13 Perceived Value Risk of Plastic Money

The respondents were asked to reveal their perception towards the risk of using

plastic money and also the value or importance of using plastic money. The questions

was prepared on 5 point likert scale and respondents indicate their level of agreement

from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Weighted average mean was calculated and

ranks were given.


149

Table 5.13.1 Perceived functional risk

Sr.

No.

Variable SA A N D SD W.A.M Rank

1. ATM access, cash advance and

cash withdrawal facilities help

to meet financial requirements

conveniently.

165

(56.5)

70

(24)

53

(18.2)

3

(1)

1

(.03)

4.35 1

2. Buying airlines/railway tickets

by using credit card at special

counters saves times

91

(31.2)

150

(57.4)

46

(15.8)

4

(1.4)

1

(0.3)

4.11 2

3. Additional charges for extra

facilities are worth their value,

like reward points in the

purchase of petrol and railway

tickets.

77

(26.4)

86

(29.5)

111

(38)

16

(5.5)

2

(.7)

3.75 3


Table 5.13.1 shows that card users ranked statement one as 1st (ATM access,

cash clearance and cash withdrawal facilities help meet financial requirements

conveniently) perceived functional risk towards plastic money usage. Also, statement

two was perceived to be the second functional risk associated with plastic money usage.

This followed 82% of respondents who either strongly or agreed with this statement.

The 3rd rank was given to statement three where majority of respondents were neutral

to the statements.

Table 5.13.2 Perceived psychological risk

Sr.

No.

Variable SA A N D SD W.A.M Rank

1. Feel in safe hand due to

zero/limited lost card

liability.

57

(19.5)

102

(34.9)

112

(38.4)

19

(6.5)

2

(.7)

3.66 1

2. People give recognition and

attention, if purchases are

made through cards.

51

(17.5)

76

(26)

86

(29.5)

66

(2.6)

13

(4.5)

3.29 4

3. Protection against loss or

damage from fire for items

purchased through card

provides a sense of

security.

52

(17.8)

117

(40.1)

98

(33.6)

22

(7.5)

3

(1.0)

3.66 2

4. Add on card facility makes

the family members less

dependent on the card

users.

59

(20.2)

93

(31.8)

113

(38.7)

24

(8.2)

3

(1.0)

3.62 3


Table 5.13.2 shows the perceived psychological risk towards the use of plastic

money. Safety was indicated to be the most important value attributed to the use of


150

plastic money (WAM 3.66). This was supported by 34.9% of respondents who agreed

with the statement, 19.5% strongly agreed and 38.4% were neutral to the statement.

Add on card facility was also perceived to be essential as it was ranked 3rd. Further it

was indicated that out those who respondent to this, 31.8% agreed and 38.7% were

neutral when 20.2% of the respondents strongly agreed with their statement.

The table further revealed that recognition was ranked 4th where only 26% and

17.5% agreed and strongly agreed with the statement that people recognize and give

attention if purchases are made through cards. This indicates that this is not a very

strong point to credit card holders as it carries less value in association to reasons of

adopting the cards.

The major findings are as follows:

� Majority of users using plastic money have credit cards (218) and remaining (74)

respondents possess debit cards out of total of 292 respondents.

� The age-wise analysis indicates that out of the total respondents with credit cards,

majority (49.5%) were young middle aged (31-45). Results show that majority

(50%) of debit cards holders were less than 30 years of age.

� Study shows that the respondents who indicated that they possess 4-5 cards and

above 5 cards, the majority were of the age 31-45 years.

� 51.7% of respondents said that plastic money is essential and majority of them

(45%) were between 31-45 years. 53.4% of young middle aged (31-45) people and

advocated the of vitality of plastic money.

� Study shows that 75% of respondents reportedly indicated that they use their cards

five times in a month. This shows that the trend is picking up for the usage of plastic

money.

� More than 75% of respondents report of spending less than Rs.15,000 per month on

card.

� Plastic money usage is affected by unethical practices of the fraudsters or other

parties without the consent of users. 93.49% of the respondents said that their cards


151

have never been misused. This indicates that the Indian card users are keen in using

their plastic money and they always adhere to the rules issued by their card

providers and RBI respectively.

� When the card users were enquired about the satisfaction for the legal protection

available to cardholders, majority were unable to say exactly. Perhaps they are

confused or having some doubts about the Indian legal system.

� Gender wise analysis reveals that majority (77%) who adopted plastic money were

males having 4-5 cards. This shows that the females rarely use plastic money as the

possession of plastic cards is dominated by males.

� Both males and females are of the opinion that plastic money is essential for daily

life but frequency of card usage and monthly spending on card is dominated by

males as compared to females.

� Survey finding shows that all respondents pay the full bill payment within the grace

period.

� Majority (93.49%) who said that their cards have never been misused, 76.9% were

males and 23.1% were females. This indicates that in both cases, majority of them

are careful and take the instructions seriously from their card providers.

� From the income perspective, out of total users surveyed, majority (54.50%) belong

to the class of people who earn a monthly income of Rs.20,001-Rs.60,000, having

2-3 cards and admitted the essentiality of plastic money in their daily lives. Survey

shows that this slot of income group uses their card 3-5 times in a month with a total

spending of Rs.5001-Rs.15000 per month.

� Majority (57.1%) who earns Rs.20,001-Rs.60,000 per month pays the card bill full

payment beyond the grace period and who makes the full payment within grace

period were only 54.1%.

� The education being the vital parameter shows the perception of card user that

majority who adopted the plastic money are well qualified. Perhaps, this may be


152

easy for the highly qualified people to manage their funds more wisely as compared

to other groups.

� Plastic money is perceived to be essential for educated people as they use their cards

6-10 times in a month, by managing their resources efficiently and makes the full

payment within the grace period. It shows education also matters when it is related

to payment pattern of card users.

� Occupation perspective shows that majority of respondents who use plastic money

in their daily lives, are from service class. Business class people are least interested

in using plastic money.

� The study indicates that service class spend Rs.5001-Rs.15000 monthly on card as

compared to professional and business people. Further, the result shows that service

class make full payment within the grace period with great caution as they need not

to be liable to balances later.

� The study confirms that majority of card users in India never carry revolving

balance. The overall interpretation shows that Indian card holders are careful as they

strictly follow instructions given at the time of agreeing plastic money.

� Factors responsible for choosing the cards are distribution network, followed by free

credit period and interest rates. The factors which were regarded less important were

advertisement on T.V., convinced by direct selling associates and benefits offered

by credit card agency.

� Spending pattern of customers shows that the groceries was ranked first, followed

by restaurants bills payment and cash withdrawals.

� ATM access, cash advance and cash withdrawal facilities are regarded as the

functional risk on the other hand, safety and limited lost card liability is perceived to

be the psychological risk towards the plastic money.

perception of card users towards...

Documents