DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.419/17
Khusboo Mittal
W/o Shri Ankit Mittal
R/o 2nd Floor, H-37,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi- 110016
Saroj Mittal
W/o Shri G.P. Mittal,
R/o 2nd Floor, H-37,
Green Park Extension,
New Delhi- 110016 …..Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited
HDFC Bank House, Senpati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai,
Maharashtra- 400013
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited,
Sub-Station Building, Sector-V,
Pushp Vihar, New Delhi- 110017 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.12.2017
Date of Order : 25.11.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Order
President: Monika Srivastava
The facts of the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is the daughter-in-law of complainant no. 2 and had availed the online services of OP No.1 i.e HDFC Bank, in which she holds an account bearing no. 03131870000234 for making the payment towards electricity bill of OP No.2 i.e BSES. The complainants have alleged that this transaction was debited twice from the account of the complainant no.1’s account but the payment was credited to the account of OP No.2 only once.
The complainant no.1 had availed the online services of OP No.1 by using her debit card provided to her by the OP No.1 on 14.01.2016 for making a payment of Rs.5829/-towards electricity bill of OP No.2 however the transaction was reflected as not successful. The Complainant No.1 then wrote an email to OP No.2 dated 16.01.2016 seeking details of the payment made on 14.01.2016 but did not receive any reply from OP No.2. A printed copy of the email dated 16.01.2016 has been exhibited as Ex. CW1/C-3. Since she wanted to avoid late payment charges on the electricity bill, Complainant No.1, made another payment of Rs.5829.43/- inclusive of all bank charges on 19.01.2016 on the online portal of OP No.2 using her debit card provided by OP No.1. Meanwhile, OP No.2 confirmed by an email dated 19.01.2016 that no payment towards payment of electricity dues for meter no. 27501520 with CA no. 151536419 on 14.01. 2016 has been received. The email has been exhibited as Ex. CW 1/5. As a result of these transactions, the complainant no.1 alleges that her account was debited twice for the same transaction once on 14.01.2016 and then on 19.01.2016. The Complainant then immediately contacted OP No.1 for refund of the amount deducted from her savings account on 14.01.2016. A true copy of the email dated 26.10. 2017 has been exhibited as Ex. CW1/7 however the money was not credited to her account despite various reminders.
The complainants have prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.5829/- which is stated to be wrongly debited by OP No. 1 with interest at 24% p.a and also prayed for punitive damages to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-.
OP No.1 in their reply have taken the plea that for most online transactions OTP or one time password is required and one cannot really complete the transaction without it, this is to ensure that no fraudulent transactions occur. Requirement of an OTP is part of the RBI mandated two factor authentication also known as two step verification that builds an additional layer of security in online transaction and OTP has provided much needed assurance in the mind of the customer during online transactions by verification of identity. It is further stated that since the complainant in this case had used online payment gateway, said payment cannot be made without password and the only way to make the payment was to enter the PIN which is confidential and is known to the person who is holding the debit or credit card. They further state that OP no. 1 has no role to play as the payment process requires OTP which is sent to the registered mobile or number of the complainant and without keying the said OTP the payment process cannot be completed. They have further alleged that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.
OP No.2 in their reply have stated that they have been impleaded as a party without any reason and that no cause of action has arisen against them. They have further stated that complainant is not the consumer of OP No.2 as the meter stands in the name of Nagpal builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. and is not for the use of an individual occupant and meant for common staircase.
Having gone through the affidavit evidence and written arguments filed by the complainant and OP No. 1, it is not in doubt that the Ex. CW-1/1 pertains to an electricity bill in the name of M/s Nagpal Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. However, it has been satisfactorily explained by the Complainant no.1 in her complaint that she was making a payment on behalf of her mother -in -law i.e complainant no. 2 who was paying the bill pertaining to the common area of the building where they own two floors and which stands in the name of Nagpal Builders. This has not been further challenged by any of the OPs.
Further, Ex. CW-1/2 is the statement of account from 01.01.2016 to 29.02.2016 of the complainant no.1 which depicts two such payments being debited from the account of the complainant. OP No.1 has failed to satisfactorily explain these two payments being debited from the complainant no.1’s account in their reply. It is also not the case of the OP that the credit of any one payment has been given to her. It has also been stated that once the consumer, in order to make any payment online enters the card number on the online payment portal, the portal forwards such information of the transaction to the merchant bank and the merchant bank processes the transaction by verifying the details and releases the payment. In this case the merchant bank is none other than OP no. 1.
The Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to have a refund of Rs.5,829/- which was wrongly debited by OP No.1 from her savings bank account with interest @6% p.a from the date of debit till realization. OP No.1 is also directed to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment caused to her due to their deficiency in service within 2 months from the date of passing of this order. No relief has been prayed against OP No.2.
No order as to cost of litigation.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
