1. The case of the complainant is that he is having one saving account with the O.P. No. 1 vide account no. 11384488282.  It is submitted that on 13.07.2020 due to medical urgency, he remitted Rs. 13,000/- from his above account to his friend who is having saving account with the O.P. No.3 vide account no. 391302010002901, through the O.P. No 2, but due to putting wrong account number, the said amount did not disburse to his friend, but the above amount has been deducted from his saving account.  It is alleged that he made complaint to O.P. No.1 to recredit the debited amount, since no action taken by them, he made written complaint to the O.P. No.1, but to no result.  It is also alleged that while the account number is mismatched, the above amount should not be debited or else recredit automatically within specific period.  Thus with other allegations, showing deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the debited amount of Rs. 13,000/- with interest and to pay Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter versions admitting transaction made on 13.07.2020 for Rs. 13,000/- in the saving account of complainant, but denied the allegations of complainant contending that since the complainant has availed the service of the O.P. No.2 for the transaction made on 13.07.2020, as such complainant is not a consumer under them.  It is also contended that the disputed amount was debited from his saving account and not remitted to the beneficiary, which is only due to his own fault by putting wrong account number of the beneficiary, as such they have no liability.  Further contended that the transaction made through O.P. No.2 providing access to transfer the amount from his account available with them and the O.P. No.2 never authorized by the O.P. No.1 for the said purpose and it is the complainant who allowed the O.P. No.2 to transfer the money by giving all details of his bank account, hence they have nothing to do in this regard and also it is the O.P. No.2 who can disclose about the transaction having access in its own application and complainant is supposed to intimate the fact to the O.P. No.2, who is an online payment platform from the users’ account to the account of beneficiary, as such they have no control over the said platform, and with other contentions showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. O.P. No. 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed counter versions admitting the transaction made on 13.07.2020 for Rs. 13,000/- by the complainant, but denied the other allegations contending that since the complainant has entered the wrong account number of the beneficiary, as such complainant cannot claim against them.  Further contended that they provide a digital payments platform which enables the users to pay and receive money directly from the user’s bank account and transactions which were made through them are under the infrastructure of National Payment Corporation of India’s (NPCI) Unified Payment Interface (UNI) and the NPCI is an initiative of RBI and IBA under the provisions of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 for operating retail payments and settlement systems in India.  Further contended that they being an intermediary, they are entitled for exemptions available under law including the provision of I.T. Act., 2000 and with other contentions, showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case.

4. O.P. No.3 though the received the notice from the Commission, did not choose to appear nor filed their counter version nor participated in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them.
    
5. Complainant has filed the documents such as :-
   1. Copy of bank pass book vide account no. 11384488282.
   2. Copy of bank pass book showing deduction of Rs. 13,000/-.
   3. Copy of written complaint dated 12.08.2020 made to O.P.No.1.
   4. Copy of payment receipt issued by O.P. No.2 towards payment of Rs. 13,000/- made to the beneficiary.
   5. Copy of bank passbook of Sri S.S. Mishra (beneficiary) showing non credit of the amount of Rs.13,000/- on dated 13.07.2020.

For better clarification documents were marked as C1, C2, C3, C4 & C5 on behalf of the complainant.

             O.P. No. 1 has mentioned filing of 4 nos. of documents in their list of documents, but filed only 2 nos. of documents i.e.

1.   Copy of transaction selection criteria of A/c no.       
2.   Copy of statement of a/c vide no. 11384488282

For better clarification documents were marked as OP1(a) & OP1(b) on behalf of the O.P. No.1.

O.P. No. 2 has filed documents like :

           (i)  Copy of certified copy of authorization letter.

          (ii) Copy of internet copy i.e. UPI 3^rd party apps of Google Pay

                showing Third Party Application and Payment System

                 Provider Banks.

                For better clarification documents were marked as OP2(i) and OP2(ii) on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

               After detailed hearing from the parties, we have ascertained the following questions to be decided which are only related to the                   subject matter of the disputes.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.P. No.1 for the specific transaction ?
    
2. Whether the wrong entry of account number of the beneficiary by the complainant makes the O.Ps free from their liabilities ?

3. Whether complainant is entitled to get back his debited amount, if so, from whom ?

4. Whether complainant is entitled for compensation and costs as claimed by him, if so to what extent ?

6. Coming to the first point, we have gone through the documents filed by the complainant as well as the documents filed by the O.P. No.1.  From the Ext. C1 & C2 and OP1(b), it is ascertained that complainant is having a saving bank account with the O.P. No. 1 vide account no. 11384488282.  It is also ascertained from Ext. C1 & C2 and OP1(a) that the alleged transaction was made through O.P.No.2 on the infrastructure of Unified Payment Interface (in short UPI).  The A/R for O.P. No.1 argued that the complainant has availed the service of the O.P.No.2 only for the alleged transaction but not of them.  In this connection, we would like to make it clear that the alleged transaction is made only the reason that complainant is having saving bank account which is available with the O.P. No.1, otherwise he would not have depended on the O.P. No.1 for any transaction. Naturally, one will be supposed to depend on that specific bank where he is having account for making any online or offline transaction.  Hence it cannot be said that the transaction made through any UPI method or to say indirect method, debar a customer from the purview of complainant.  Further it is well observed that there is no such personal contract made between the complainant and the O.P. No.1 for doing any online payment through any 3^rd party application.  Further Section 2(42) of the C.P.Act, 2019 has also emphasizes that “service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.Hence we feel, since there is no contract for personal service between the complainant and the O.P. No.1, complainant has hired the service of O.P. No.1 for such transaction.  From the above analysis, it is clear that the complainant is a consumer under O.P. No.1.         

7. Coming to the second point, we have gone through the documents filed by the complainant as well as the documents filed by the O.P. No.1 & 2.  From the Ext. C4 & C5 and OP1(b),  and OP2(ii), it is ascertained that complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 13,000/- from his account available with the O.P. No.1 through the online payment platform of O.P. No.2.    Ext. C2 and OP1(b) clearly shows that the aforesaid amount was debited from the account of the complainant.  Though the said amount was debited from his account but did not credited into the account of the beneficiary, which is also visible from the Ext. C4 & C5.  From the above documents it is well established that the amount of Rs. 13,000/- was debited from the account of complainant but did not credited into the account of the beneficiary.  Though the A/R for O.P. No.1 & 2 argued that since the complainant has entered the wrong account number of beneficiary, as such for his own fault, complainant cannot claim against them.  On reply, complainant argued that while the account number is wrong, the aforesaid amount should not deduct from his account, and if it is deducted than the said amount shall be returned by the online platform i.e. O.P. No.2 or else recredited by the concerned bank, whereas he has made written complaint to the O.P. No.1 in this regard.  We think, although the aforesaid amount was deducted from the saving account of complainant but without crediting the same to the account of beneficiary, the O.P. No.2 has kept the said amount with them since the day of transaction made, which is clearly visible from the Ext. C4 & C5.

           Further it is ascertained from the document i.e. Ext. C3 that due to such non remittance, complainant made a written complainant               on 12.08.2020 to the O.P. No.1 whereas the O.P. No.1 though entertained the same but did not take any action in that regard, and               in our view being a custodian of the amount of complainant, it is the first and foremost duty on the part of the O.P. No.1 to                         intimate  the fact to the O.P.No.2 or to guide the complainant for taking appropriate and suitable action, but the O.P.No.1 has                      miserably failed to do so and kept silent, neither intimated the fact to the O.P.No.2 nor extend their cooperation to the                                  complainant  to get back his lost amount.

            Further it is seen on many occasions that if a customer enters a wrong account number to transfer his amount though online                        platform, than the amount are generally recredited in to the account of the said account within specific period, but in the instant                  case, that has not been done either by O.P.No.1 or O.P. No. 2, whereas both the O.Ps have well aware of the same.

            Further it is seen from the record that the O.P. No.1 & 2 both, without extending their cooperation to the complainant to get back                his lost amount, have tried to push their own burden and liability against one another, whereas both have forgotten that they are                  getting profits from the any transaction made with them by the complainant. Hence in our view, both the O.Ps were supposed to                extent their helping hand and best services to the complainant, and due to such deficiency in service of both the O.Ps,                                  complainant was compelled to knock the door of this Commission, which is not justified.

            As per above discussions, we feel that both the O.P. No.1 & 2 has miserably failed to brought out any evidence in support of their              submissions which can make them free from their liabilities and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 & 2 is well proved.

8. Coming to the third point, as per the above analysis, complainant is entitled to get back his lost amount.

9. Coming to fourth point, we feel complainant must have suffered from mental agony and financial loss as well as physical harassment for not providing better service by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 to the complainant, as complainant is a genuine customer under both the O.P.No.1 & 2, for which complainant was compelled to seek redress before the Commission by incurring some expenses, as such he is also entitled for compensation and costs.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                     ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally, are directed to refund the lost amount of Rs. 13,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards causing mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 13,000/- shall carry interest 10% p.a. from the date of transaction i.e. 13.07.2020 till payment. And the awarded amount shall be borne by both O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 on equal share basis.

       Since no specific allegations is made out against the O.P. No.3, no order against them.

        Pronounced the order on this the 4^th day of May, 2021 in the open Court.   Issue free copy to the parties concerned.