Date of filing :1.9.2017

Judgment : Dt.26.4.2018

Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member

            This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Sri Madan Mohan Saraff alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) Mr. Vijoy Shekhar Sharma, (2) Mr. Madhur Deora, (3) Mr. Viveet Kaul, (4) Paytm Payment Bank Ltd., (5) Bengal Office, (6) Nodal Office and (7) CESC Ltd.

            Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is user of electricity service provided by the OP No.7 through two meters being Consumer Nos.15000272904 and 1500072913 at his residence being Flat Nos.303 & 304 on the 3^rd floor, premises No.12, Ashoka Road, P.S.-Alipore, Kolkata-700 027 and to pay off the electricity bill, the Complainant hired the service of OP Nos.1 to 6, a group carrying on their business under the name and style of ‘Paytm’ who used to deposit the required amount for consumption of the electricity in respect of two meters. The Complainant has alleged that due to negligent act on the part of the OP Nos.1 to 6 the Complainant lost additional rebate on the electricity bill raised by the OP No.7 for the month of January, 2017 which the OP Nos.1 to 6 did not deposit within stipulated time and the Complainant had to pay the said amount from his Bank account. The Complainant have further stated that he requested the OP Nos.1 to 6 to refund INR 3600 together with interest and penalty and CESC penalty on INR 19080 but the OP Nos.1 to 6 did not refund the principal amount of INR 3600 to the account of the Complainant and the Complainant by filing the instant Consumer Complaint prayed for direction upon OP Nos.1 to 6 to refund sum of Rs.3,600, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of his reputation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.

            The Complainant annexed documents including CESC bill for the month of February, 2017 and March, 2017, Account Statement of the Complainant, letter of complaint and claim, etc.

            The OP Nos.1 to 6 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stated inter alia, that the issue regarding refund of Rs.3,600/- on 11.3.2017 had already been resolved with the refund of Rs.3,600/- on 11.3.2017 into his paytm wallet and refund of Rs.19,080/- with the Bank Account of the Complainant on 14.3.2017. It is further stated by the OP Nos.1 to 6 that Paytm had never received the disputed amount of Rs.3,600/- or Rs.19,080/-. Moreover, it was auto reversed to the Paytm wallet of the Complainant and Bank Account of the Complainant respectively.

The OP annexed copy of the Resolution passed in the Board meeting dt.24.7.2015.

The OP No.7 contested the case by filing written version stated inter alia, that CESC promotes all kinds of digital payment, credit card, net Bankint, etc. but does not specifically promote any Vendor.

      The Complainant files evidence.

            In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits e-mail communication dt.18.3.2017.

            Ld. Advocate for the OP No.7 submits that no relief has been sought against them.

            Ld. Advocate for the OP Nos.1 to 6 submits that Rs.3,600/- has already been reversed to the Paytm e-wallet of the Complainant.

Points for determinations

1. Whether the OPs have deficiency in providing service
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for

Decision with reasons

Admittedly, the Complainant used to pay the electricity bill through OP Nos.1 to 6 raised by OP No.7 in respect of two meters. The Complainant has alleged that due to negligent act on the part of the OP Nos.1 to 6 the electricity bills in respect of service connection having Consumer ID Nos.15000272904 and 1500072913 have not been paid in time and, therefore, the Complainant lost opportunity of availing rebate as offered by the OP No.7. It is specific allegation of the Complainant that the OP No.7 raised bill for the month of January, 2017 in respect of the aforesaid service connection for Rs.19,080/- and Rs.3,600/- respectively which the OP Nos.1 to 6 failed to pay and, therefore, as per guideline of RBI they were liable to refund that to the Bank account of the Complainant but the amount of Rs.3,600/- was reversed to his e.wallet although Rs.19,080/- was returned to his Bank account. The OP Nos.1 to 6, in this regard, have stated that they returned the said amount of Rs.3,600/- to the source account viz. the e-wallet of the Complainant and, therefore, they have no deficiency in providing service.

Considering such contentions as made by both sides respectively, it is evident that the pivotal point of allegation as made by the Complainant that why the OP Nos.1 to 6 returned the said amount of Rs.3,600/- to his e.wallet instead of his Bank Account. The Complainant although has submitted that as per guideline of RBI the OP Nos.1 to 6 are liable to return the said amount to his Bank Account but no copy of such guideline has been furnished before us.

Further, it is also difficult to understand why the Complainant has not transferred the said amount from his e.wallet to his Bank Account. Most of time a nominal amount towards charge of transfer is deducted, but sometimes charge free transfer from e-wallet to Bank Account also occurs.

It is therefore, held that if the Complainant likes to have the said amount of Rs.3,600/- in his Bank Account he may transfer the same from his e-wallet to his Bank Account and in that case the chargeable amount, if any, of such transfer would be borne by the OP Nos.1 to 6.

Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to allow cost and compensation.

Hence,

ordered

            That CC/513/2017 is disposed with direction upon the OP Nos.1 to 6 if the Complainant transfers Rs.3,600/- from his e-wallet to Bank Account within one month from the date of this order the chargeable amount, if any, for such transfer will be borne by the OP Nos.1 to 6.