Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/4/2023

RAVINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/4/2023
Date of Institution	:	2/1/2023
Date of Decision	:	2/1/2024

 

Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Tirlok Chand resident of House No.2005/26, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh. 

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

1.       Municipal Corporation Chandigarh, Additional Deluxe Building, New Jan Marg, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Commissioner.

2.       One 97 Communications India Limited (Paytm) SCO 543 Sector 70, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Branch Manager.        

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Shubham Jain, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for OP No.2 (OP No.2 already exparte).

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  in the month of October 2022 the complainant approached OP No.1 for booking of temporary stall to be installed in Diwali festival and the complainant was informed in case he wants to book the said stall , he is required to submit online form by paying an amount of Rs.812/-. Accordingly the complainant submitted the said form by transferring an amount of Rs.812/- through Paytm app of OP No.1 and at that time in addition to Rs.812/-, the OP No.2 also charged Rs.15/- from the complainant and the copy of application form and paytm wallet detail/bank statements are annexed as Annexure
   C-1&C-2. The aforesaid amount was debited from the bank account of the complainant but surprisingly the said amount was not credited in the account of OP No.1. As the complainant was interested to have the stall, the complainant again paid an amount of Rs.812/- on 19.10.2022 to OP No.1 through Gpay  app and the said amount was debited from the account of the complainant and was credited in the account of OP No.1 and the copy of coupon  and Gpay details are attached as Annexure C-3 and C-4. In this manner, as the first payment made by the complainant of Rs.827/- was not credited in the account of OP No.1 despite of having debited from the account of the complainant, the complainant approached OPs by sending mails Annexure C-5 to C-7 to provide contact number and status of the said payment but with no result.  Again when the complainant sent two mails dated 9.11.2022 and 26.11.2022 to the OPs,  it was assured by OP No.2 that issue will be resolved. Copies of mails are annexed as Annexure C-8 and C-10. However, the said issue has not been redressed by OPs till date. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its/their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and suppression of facts. However, it is admitted that the complainant had booked stall and transferred the amount of Rs.812/- in favour of the answering OP which was duly credited in the account of answering OP. Even in the first attempt made by the complainant for the transfer of subject amount was not credited in the account of the answering OP and the complainant was accordingly informed. On merits  it is alleged that in fact when the aforesaid amount was credited in the account of the answering OP the same was reflected in the record of the  answering OP  as firstly failure and later on the same was reflected as “transaction status successful.” The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested
3. OP No.2  was properly served and when OP No.2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was  proceeded against ex-parte on 14.3.2023.
4. Complainant chose not to file rejoinder. .

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant and the contest OP(s) that  tahe complainant had booked a stall for Diwali festival online with OP No.1  and first transferred an amount of Rs.826.37, which was debited from the account of the complainant but was not credited in the account of OP No.1 and on the second attempt by the complainant through Gpay an amount of Rs.812 was transferred in the account of the OP No.1 which was duly debited from the account of the complainant as is also evident from copies of Paytm wallet  Annexure C-1 and C-2 as well as from the copies of statement of account of the complainant and also from Annexure C-4 the Gpay detail   and R-1 the  copy of Municipal Corporation record, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  is deficiency on the part of OPs  and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant.
   2. As it stands proved on record from the documentary evidence i.e. Annexure C-1 to C-4 that in fact an amount of Rs.826.37 was debited  from the account of the complainant but the same was not credit in the account of OP No.1, which is further clear from Annexure R-1 as the status qua the transfer of Rs.812/- is being shown as “ transaction status failure” and later on the amount of Rs.812/- was reflected as “ transaction status successful” only when the complainant sent the aforesaid amount through Gpay making clear that  in fact the OP No.2 has not transferred  the amount  of Rs.826.37 in the account of the OP No.1 and the subject amount remained with OP No.2 and has not even been reversed in the account of the complainant till date. Hence, the aforesaid act of OP No.2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP No.2. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.2 is directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹826.37 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of transaction i.e. 19.10.2022  till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed as complainant failed to prove cause of action against it.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/01/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member