Date of filing:- 05/01/2021.
Date of Order/Judgement:-12/12/2022.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 5 OF 2021
Purna Chandra Duan, aged about 30 years, Son of Chhabilal Duan, Resident of Antaradi, Po. Kapasira, Ps. Ambabhona, District. Bargarh Pin.768045. …. …. ... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
(1) The State Bank of India, Ruchida Branch represented through its Branch Manager,
At/Po. Ruchida, Ps. Ambabhona, District. Bargarh 768045.
(2) Union Bank of India, Bhukta Branch represented through its Branch Manager,
At/Po. Bhukta, Ps. Ambabhona, District. Bargarh 768045.
(3) Phonepe Pvt. Ltd, represented through its Managing Director, Unit No. 001, Ground Floor,
Boston House, Suren Road, Off, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093,
Maharastra (mailing address Ashford Pard View, site No.9 Industiral Layout,
Koramangala, 3rd Block, 80 ft Road, Bangalore, 560034.
… ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri P. K. Mahapatra and Associate.
For the Opposite Party No.1 :- :- Sri Aswini Kumar Dash.
For the Opposite party No.2:- :- Exparte.
For the Opposite party No.3:- :- Sri Bikramaditya Panda.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.12/12/2022. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a Consumer of Opposite Parties. The Complainant had opened saving account bearing No. 34603001791 in the bank of Opposite Party No.1 as well as an account bearing No. 777702010000119 in the bank of Opposite Party No.2. Anita Duan, wife of the Complainant has also saving bank account bearing No. 7777020100006065 with the Opposite Party No.2. The wife of the Complainant was in urgent need of money to meet the household expenses as well as her personal expenses. So on 24/10/2019 at about 9.42 A.M. made on line transfer of Rs.13000/-(Rupees thirteen thousand) only through Opposite Party No.3 vide transaction I.D. No. P1910240142429166376560 and on 11/11/2019 at about 10.38 A.M. made further on line transfer of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only through Opposite party No.3 vide transaction I.D. No. P1911111038355637583148 to the account of his wife bearing no. 777702010006065. The aforesaid amount have been debited from his bank account no. 346030001791 but said amount has not been credited to the account to which it was transferred. In order to ascertain the correctness of online transfers the Complainant on 01/03/2020 made further online transfer through OP No.3 to the account no. 77770201000011 vide transaction I.D. No. P2003011513264144996219 and P2003011518580822059827 respectively for an amount of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only each. The amount were debited from the account no. 34603001791 but such amount have not been credited to the account no. 777702010000119. The Complainant has drawn the attention of the Opposite parties but none have responded rather each of the Opposite parties are avoiding his responsibility by blaming the other Opposite Party. Such conduct of the Opposite Parties are not only amounts to deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice
- The Case of the Opposite Party is that Opposite Party No.1, State Bank of India filed its version and submitted that the Complainant has a S.B. Account bearing A.C. No. 34603001791 with the Opposite party No.1. As per the request of the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 has remitted the requested amounts from his accounts immediately. The Opposite party No.1 has honoured the request of the Complainant without delay and performed his duty perfectly. There is no question of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this Opposite party No.1 towards Complainant. Further Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the cause of action arose on 24/10/2019, when the Complainant made online transfer to the account of his wife from his account number. The Opposite party No.1 stated that the case is barred by limitation and the case is not maintainable.
- Opposite Party No.2 Union Bank of India, Bhukta Branch did not appear and set exparte.
- Opposite Party No.3 filed its version and submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 is not deficient in its service. The Opposite Party No.3 Phonepe pvt Ltd does not charge its users any fee for creating an account on its Apps or website or facilitating online payment to the end user. Further the Opposite party No.3 submitted that the Opposite party No.3 is a intermediary as per the information Technology Act 2000 and entitled to an exemption from liability. Hence Opposite party No.3 prayed for dismissal of case against him.
- Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties and following issues are framed:-
ISSUES:-
- Whether the Complaint is barred by Limitation ?
- Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in their service ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief ?
Issue No.1.
In the present case the State Bank of India Opposite Party No.1 submitted that cause of action arose on 24/10/2019. But actually the last cause of action arose on 01/03/2020. Hence the Complaint is not barred by Limitation. The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2.
Total amount Rs.53000/-(Rupees fifty three thousand) only debited from the account of the Complainant on dated 24/10/2019, 11/11/2019 and two transaction on dated 01/03/2020. The amounts are debited from the account of the Complainant but not credited in another account. In case of transfer, where bank account is debited but beneficiary account is not credited, then auto reversal must be done, But in the present case the amounts were neither returned to the account of the Complainant nor deposited in the account of the benificiery. It is the duty of the transferring bank to confirm the transaction. But the Opposite No.1 failed to do so. Accordingly the Opposite party No.1 is deficient in its service by not confirming the transaction.
The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.3.
For deficiency of service of Opposite party No.1 the Complainant harassed and suffered mental agony and entitled for relief.
O R D E R
The Complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite party No.1 and dismissed against Opposite party No.3 as Opposite Party No.3 is a intermediary platform providing service free of charges. The Opposite party No.1 is directed to refund Rs.53000/-(Rupees fifty three thousand) only to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order. Failing which the amount will carry 9% interest per annum w.e.f 01/03/2020 till realization. Further the Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only for litigation expenses to the Complainant.
Order pronounced in open court on this 12th day of December 2022.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Anju Agrawal) (Jigeesha Mishra)
Dt.12/12/2022 Dt.12/12/2022
M e m b e r (w) P r e s i d e n t
Uploaded by
(Sri Dusmanta Padhan)
Office Assistant.
