ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not refunding a sum of Rs.47,000/- sent through PAYTM to OP3 by OP1 and for refund of the same along with 18% interest from 06.08.2019 till payment of the entire amount and award penalty for violation of the RBI guidelines in refunding the amount to the beneficiary account, and further a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for causing mental agony, physical hardship and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant is having an account with OP3, HDFC Bank, HRBR Layout branch, Bangalore.  The account number is 50100239449400.  OP2 is the travel agent.  As the complainant had an intention to go to Rameshwaram a pilgrimage place, in Tamilnadu, he opted the services of OP2 in booking the tickets and for his travel convenience.  OP requested the complainant to transfer a sum of Rs.47,000/- for the needful, by using the PAYTM UPI +91-9486612848 on 06.08.2019.  He transferred the said amount to OP2’s account. But the said amount was not credited to the account of OP2 by OP1.  Then he lodged a complaint to OP1 and to their officials, which was registered under docket No.135331347.  OP1 and their officials assured that the issue would be resolved within 24 hours.  Since the same was not done, again he requested through email the beneficiaries PAYTM account details, as well as, Indian Bank account linked with UPI address, wherein it clearly evidenced that the amount was not credited to the account No.OP2, till 28.08.2019.  He sent an email to the bank authorities reminding regarding unresolved matter, for which they replied that transaction of Rs.47,000/- was successfully processed and the amount has been added to the PAYTM payment bank account linked with receivers UPI address, but it was not materialized as informed by OP2 the beneficiary to the complainant.  Inspite of the beneficiary receiving an email from OP stating that Rs.47,000/- has been wrongly credited to a S.B. account No.2848 for UPI transaction RRN 921837522866 and this amount would be deducted on next addition of balance to his account.  Even after lapse of four months after transaction, the said amount has not been reversed to his account. He had to issue legal notice seeking reversal of the amount. As per the RBI guidelines, within 10 days of the transaction, the bank has to resolve the issue failing which to pay interest and penalties.  Inspite of it, OPs have not reverted the amount to his account and hence the complaint.

3.      Upon the service of notice, OP3 appeared before the Commission and filed the version contending that it is a reputed bank having branches in India and that the complaint is having an account with it and linked to his bank account with a digital transfer application platform commonly known as UPI. Knowing fully well the risk involved in the transaction. He himself gave debit instruction using the UPI platform of OP1 and accordingly Rs.47,000/- transferred electronically to the account of OP1.  

4.      It is further contended that OP3 has no control or information about the further remittance or any other payments, wherein OP 3 is not made known about the same.  Neither OP1 or OP2 have remitted back Rs.47,000/- to the account of the complainant standing with it.  It has stated further the complaint raising the complainant and it came to its notice as per the PAYTM reply wherein, OP1 assured that the complainant’s issue will be resolved within 24 hours is not within its knowledge. It is contended, that it has no knowledge regarding the email correspondences and the assurances given by OP1.  It has not received any legal notice and hence no necessity to reply.  Further no allegations of any nature and deficiency in service is made out in the complaint and that there is no cause of action against it to file this complaint and hence prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After service of notice OP2 appeared before the Commission and stated that he has not received any money from the complainant or from OP1, and he has no PAYTM account.

6.      OP1 appeared before the Commission and filed the detailed objection admitting that it is carrying on the payment bank business under the name as PAYTM and it is a registered company under the companies act.  The present complaint deserves to be dismissed as it is only a formal and Performa party. Complainant has to establish a specific cause for against OP1.  OP1 has been impleaded as a party to the complainant only to seek wrongful gain and the claim is unjustifiable.  The complainant has agreed to avail the UPI service of OP after accepting the terms and conditions.  OP1 through PAYTM UPI facility provides facility to its customer to transfer funds to persons. Individuals and merchants called as beneficiaries by providing their bank account details, UPI details, valid details issued by OP1 for the purpose of transferring the funds.  OP1 is also having mobile application/web portal for affecting online payment services.  If the consumer wishes, initiate a transaction through PAYTM UPI facility he/she also enter all genuine and correct banking information/credential of beneficiary and upon receipt of such banking credentials, OP1 automatically process the said transaction without manual intervention through its servers and the amount is credited to beneficiaries’ bank /valid account.

7.      In the present case, complainant made a transaction in favour of OP2 by using PAYTM UPI facility for Rs.47,000/- and had been successfully transferred to the bank account of OP2. Hence there is no liability of OP1 in the said transaction, whereas, the transaction has been successfully processed and the amount has been credited to the account No.9486612848 of OP2.  The bank statement of OP2 relics that a sum of Rs.49,907/- has been credited to OP2’s account which includes Rs.47,000/- sent by the complainant.  OP1 endeavors to provide its customers UPI facility in accordance with UPI guidelines, circulars, regulations issued by RBI and or national payment corporation of India and terms and conditions categorically agreed by the complainant.  PAYTM UPI facility offers an instant interbank electronic fund transfer or fund collection services to the customer of UPI members bank.  The customers can put in request for fund transfer or fund collection or respond to funds collection from the app application in a secured manner for any of their linked bank accounts using their unit VPA handle.  

8.      In the instant case complainant has wrongly stated that the said amount has not been credited to OP2 till date even after repeated request to refund the said amount to his account. As per the applicable terms and condition, it has been agreed by the complainant that once UPI payment request is initiated and completed by customer himself, the amount in question through the said UPI transaction automatically gets credited to the beneficiary account without the involvement or manual intervention of OP1.  Hence the amount sent by the complainant to OP2 has successfully processed and credited.  When once the amount transferred through UPI mode cannot be reversed and the account of the complainant to claim reversal of the transaction is not only contrary to the applicable guidelines and terms and conditions agreed but also in contradiction to the facts asserted by the complainant in the present case. On one hand complainant asserts that he had voluntary transferred the amount to OP2 account and on the other hand claims for reversal from OP3 by citing reason of unintended beneficiary bank account, which clearly depicts malie and an attempt to claim unjustified relief.  It has also mentioned in the version the rights and obligations of the customers who uses UPI facility, the instructions and the disclaimer.  In view of this, OP1 has limited role to play in this transaction as the transaction by the complainant has been successful and the amount has been transferred to OP2 account and hence there exists no liability on OP1 and there is no cause of action against it.  Complainant has not come with the clean hands before this commission and has suppressed material facts and concealed and misrepresented the relevant facts and on all these grounds, prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint by imposing exemplary cost.  

9.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

10.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

11.   POINT No.1 AND 2:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is not in dispute that the complainant is having an account with OP3 and has sent through PAYTM a sum of Rs.47,000/- to be paid to the account of OP2.  It is specific case of OP2 that he has not received the said amount.  It is also the specific case of OP3 that after the complainant raised the issue regarding the non payment of amount by PAYTM i.e., OP1 to the beneficiary i.e., OP2, it has not received a sum of Rs.47,000/- either by OP1 or by OP3.  The bank statement produced by the complainant in respect of his account standing with OP3 clearly shows that a sum of Rs.47,000/- has been transferred to PAYTM.  

12.   It is the duty of the OP1 that to credit the amount to the account of the beneficiary i.e., OP2 in this case.  In case the same is not credited to the amount to the account of the beneficiary for whatever reason, it is the bounden duty of OP1 to refund the amount to the person /his account who has sent the amount.  In view of OP3 stating in unequivable terms that it has not received the amount from OP1 or from OP2 and in view of OP2 clearly stating that he has no PAYTM account and no amount has been received either from OP1 or from the complainant, we are of the firm opinion that the amount is struck  with OP1 and OP1 has not shown any interest to resolve the issue even after complaint has been raised and docket number has been issued.  As per the guidelines of the RBI OP1 has to take a clear decision within ten days and revert back the amount to the complainant.   

13.   The email correspondences produced shows that OP3 has made some correspondences and intimated the complainant that is payment bank accepts their request, then only they can credit the amount to customer account the.  The payment bank i.e., OP1 has not produced any document to show that the said amount is received from OP3 on behalf of the complainant through net banking payment has been credited to the account of OP2.  OP2 has produced his bank statement commencing from 01.08.2019 to 31.08.2019, wherein no amount of Rs.47,000/- has been transferred through UPI transfer.  The complainant has produced with Memo a certificate issued by the Indian Bank with whom OP has an SB account to which his mobile number has been linked for online payments.  The mobile number linked is 9486612848, which is the same to which the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.47,000/- through PAYTM.

14.   OP1 in the version and the evidence has contended that it is only a platform to transfer the amount which was initiated by the complainant to the beneficiary i.e., OP2 and according to it, the amount has been transferred to OP2’s account and the transaction is successful. It has produced the report regarding the successful transaction. It is the contention of OP1 that the amount has been transferred to the account of OP2 and the account statement of OP2, stating that OP2 has received Rs.47,000/- and the current balance shows that Rs.49,907/- which includes the amount of Rs.47,000/- transferred by the complainant.  OP2 has produced the entire account statement pertaining to the transactions held from 0108.2019 to 31.08.2019 standing with Indian Bank, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri district and the account No.6431659584 to which his mobile number 9486612848 has been attached. In the account statement produced by the complainant to show that the amount of Rs.47,000/- has been transferred through PAYTM on 06.08.2019, bears UPI No.+91-9486612848 PAYTM.  The transaction is dated 06.08.2019. In the account statement produced by OP2 for the date 06.08.2019 a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been transferred to his account by ATM service branch, Rs.49,000/- two times, Rs.48,500/- and Rs.49,500/- has been credited to his account from the remitters branch of Gudiyattam. Nowhere, in the said account extract, remittance of Rs.49,700/- or Rs.47,000/- on 06.08.2019 or any day afterwards is forthcoming.  It is to be observed here that the complainant is having the account with HSBC Bank, situated at HRBR Layout. No amount has been credited from the said branch to the account of OP2 on 06.08.2019.

15.   When such being the case, it is clear that the said amount has been held up with PAYTM system and the OP 1 has not taken any initiation in refunding the amount. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and in the result complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.47,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a., from 06.08.2019 till payment of the entire amount and the said amount is to be paid by OP1 only.

16.   Further, the act of OP1 in not resolving the issue within the time limit prescribed by RBI guidelines and also not even within the reasonable time after complainant issuing legal notice, made the complainant to approach this Commission besides suffering mentally and physically and also financially.  Hence we are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages for the same and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses if OP1 is ordered to pay to the complainant would be just, proper and reasonable under the circumstances. Hence we answer point No.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint against OP1 is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP1 is directed to refund Rs.47,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a., from 06.08.2018 till payment of the amount and the same to be credited to the account of the complainant, standing with OP3.
3. OP1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. Complaint against OP2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
5. The OP1 is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Payment details of Rs.47,000/-

Ex P2: Correspondences

Ex. P3: Bank statement

Ex P4: Copy of the legal notice

Ex P5: Postal track record

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.Sarthak Kapila

RW-2: Sri.Sidagoud B Patil

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

• NIL -

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

HAV*