Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/672/2021

Ashok Kumar Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director & CEO, FINO Pay Tech Ltd. Bank, Fino Payment Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/672/2021
Date of Institution	:	20.9.2021
Date of Decision	:	23/10/2023

 

Ashok Kumar Goel son of Shri Mangat Ram Goel, resident of House No.3406, 1^st floor, police, society, sector 51D, Chandigarh now residing at House No.AG-447, Sector 109, Emaar Mohali Hill, SAS Nagar (Mohali) 140306.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Managing Director & CEO, FINO Pay Tech Ltd. Bank, Fino payment bank Ltd. Plot No.D-507/2^nd floor, MIDC Turbhet, Navi Mumbai.
2. Manager, Fino payment bank Ltd., Branch Kharabwadi, City Pune, District Pune, Gali No. 2912, Tal Khed, District Pune, Kharabwadi, Pin Code 410505.
3. Chandan Kumar son of Sonu Ram resident of village Nadha, gram Panchayat Bara, Block and tehsil Hilsa, District Nalanda (Bihar).

 .  … Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Atul Goyal, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Varun Dhawan, Advocate for OP No.2
	:	OP No.3 exparte.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant started constructing his house at Mohali  in the month of May 2019 for which cement was required and accordingly the complainant came across the online offer/advertisement of Ambuja Cement Ltd. which was offering cement at lower rate than the market and he was attracted to the  online offer of Ambuja Cement for supply of cement bags at the site. It is alleged that in fact the online offer/advertisement was fake ID of Ambuja cement Ltd. uploaded on fake website by OP No.3 in connivance with his other gang members to defraud the general people at large. The complainant entrapped by the allurement of OP No.3 deposited a sum of Rs.82500/-  on 19.9.2019 in its account, which was  immediately transferred by OP No.3 in its another account. It is alleged that OPs No.1&2  are not running their bank as per instructions of RBI as  the account number of OP No.3 which has been mentioned on online advertisement has been opened by the OP No.2 solely on the basis of Aadhar Card of OP No.3 without verifying the KYC and his local address at pune. which is a  lapse  on the part of OPs No.1&2. It is alleged that the account opened in the branch of OP No.2 is being used for defrauding the people at large which is against the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that the  complainant placed an order for bags of ambuja cement on a third party website  which is an independent party and the answering OP has no control of say in the actions and processes  on the independent party.  It is averred that the complainant himself admitted that the OP No.3 had immediately transferred the amount to his other account hence, to put a lien on the account which is no longer within the jurisdiction of answering OP neither legally justifiable nor practically tenable.  The answering OP facilitate payment transactions entered by and between the customer and independent third parties.  Further the complainant was duly informed that his request for refund was denied on account of non-availability of the impugned funds within the system of the answering OP as the complainant  had approached the answering OP very late i.e. after a gap of 15 days. It is averred that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP as the complainant has not availed services of the answering OP. It is alleged that the allegations leveled by the complainant qua the answering OP are without an iota of evidence but are based on concocted and fabricated  stories and devoid of merits.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied being wrong.
3.  OP No.2 in its reply stated that it has been accorded license by the RBI after due diligence to operate as payment bank. It is sated that the relevant bank account in the instant case was opened following the due process as laid down by the RBI. It is vehemently denied that there is any deviation in opening the bank account of the OP No.3. It is averred that the complainant is not a consumer qua the  answering OP as he has not hired any service of the answering OP. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
4. No rejoinder filed by  the complainant.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main point for consideration in the instant complaint is whether the complainant is a consumer qua Ops No.1&2 or not. For clarification the relevant portion of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is reproduced as under:-

“"consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose”

8. It is an admitted fact of the complainant as well as on the face of record of the file that he never availed any services of OPs No.1&2 in any manner. Hence, in our opinion he is not a consumer qua Ops No.1&2 and the allegations leveled qua OPs No.1&2 are of without any iota of evidence
9. In the instant complaint basically the complainant  is aggrieved by the fraud carried out upon him by OP No.3 but the complainant has impleaded OPs No.1&2 as necessary party without placing on record any cogent evident to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.
10. The complainant has made allegations of fraud and cheating against OP No.3, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. Thus, the complainant is at liberty to approach the  appropriate authority/tribunal/court for redressal of his grievance.
11. Moreover the complainant has sought relief only against OPs No.1&2 for ill will of OP No.3, as discussed above. The complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that he has availed services of OPs No.1&2. Hence, the complaint has no merit and the same deserves dismissal.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.  Application if any stands disposed off.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
15.  

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
23/10/2023
mp