DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/168/2022

Date of Institution   : 24.06.2022

Date of Decision    : 27.10.2023

Pooja Goyal wife of Sh. Mohit Goyal resident of House No. 52, Om City Colony, Handiaya Road, Barnala Tehsil and District Barnala.        

                          …Complainant Versus

One Mobikwik Systems Limited, Unit No. 102, Block-B Pegasus One, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 53, Gurugram Haryana 122003 through its Managing Director, Partner, Sole Prop. 

                             …Opposite Party

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Amit Goyal counsel for complainant.

Sh. H.S. Sandhu counsel for opposite party.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Pooja Goyal has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against One Mobikwik Systems Limited (hereinafter referred as opposite party).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is permanent resident of above said address and having installed a domestic electricity connection in the said premises in her name bearing Account No. 3005657643. The complainant is regularly paying the due electricity charges from time to time. It is alleged that the electricity department raised an amount of Rs. 1,590/- vide bill No. 20731190122120723 relating to the period from 10.11.2021 to 19.1.2022. On 2.2.2022 the complainant credited an amount of Rs. 1600/- in the wallet of the opposite party vide transaction ID No. 355403714a485 and paid the above said amount of Rs. 1590/- to electricity department through platform of opposite party vide transaction ID No. MK01762932480 and the same was immediately debited from the wallet account of complainant. Thereafter, on 12.3.2022 the complainant received an another bill raised by the electricity department relating to period 19.1.2022 to 12.3.2022, where concerned official raised a demand of Rs. 1590/- being due amount relating to the previous bill alongwith an amount of Rs. 57/- which was charged as late fees, whereas the amount of Rs. 1590/- was earlier paid by the complainant through platform of opposite party which was not credited in the account of PSPCL by opposite party. It is alleged that the complainant in due course moved an application before the concerned officials of electricity department for verification as to whether they had received an amount of Rs. 1590/- through Transaction ID Number MK01762932480 against the earlier bill number 20731190122120723 from opposite party or not, upon which they reported that the above said payment is not received in account number 3005657643, which caused a great shock, pain and agony to the complainant. It is further alleged that under the compelled circumstances the complainant had to deposit the said amount again with the PSPCL just due to above said act of the opposite party. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To return an amount of Rs. 1590/- alongwith an amount of Rs. 57/- to complainant.   

ii) Further, to pay the amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, concealment of material facts, complainant not come with clean hands, complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint etc. It is further alleged that 2.2.2022 the complainant initiated a payment of Rs. 1590/- to PSPCL as an electricity bill payment through platform of respondent and on the direction of complainant the respondent facilitated the said electricity bill payment under the Bharat Bill Payment System to PSPCL. It is alleged that the respondent released the payment against the electricity bill on 2.2.2022 vide transaction ID No. MK012033BAACM8AGW000 and was settled with PSPCL on the same day. On 28.3.2022 the complainant raised a dispute on the above mentioned transaction through the platform of respondent and on the same day respondent raised a request for charge back (return of transaction amount) to PSPCL. It is submitted that in case a transaction fails the amount of the failed transaction gets refunded automatically to the user and the delay in processing charge back to the complainant was caused due to the lag at PSPCL's end. It is further alleged that on 24.6.2022 the amount of said transaction of Rs. 1590/- was refunded in the complainant's Mobikwik Wallet, so the complainant is not entitled to any refund. It is submitted that the respondent vide email dated 8.7.2022 apprised the complainant regarding resolution of the complainant's grievance. On merits, it is submitted that on 24.6.2022 the disputed transaction amount has already been refunded in the Mobikwik Wallet of the complainant, hence there is no cause of action. All other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of present complaint. 

4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version of the opposite party and reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. 

5. In support of her case the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, copy of letter Ex.C-5, legal notice Ex.C-6, postal receipt Ex.C-7, copies of whatsapp chat Ex.C-8 (containing 9 pages), copy of adhaar card Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of complainant, the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Garima Budhiraja Arya Ex.O.P-1, copy of authority letter Ex.O.P-2, copy of charge back request Ex.O.P-3, copy of Wallet Statement Ex.O.P-4 (containing 2 pages), copy of Email Ex.O.P-5 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by the opposite party. 

8. In order to prove her case, the complainant has placed on record her detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein she reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on record copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, which shows that in the bill dated 12.3.2022 the electricity department raised the demand of Rs. 1590/- being due amount relating to the previous bill alongwith an amount of Rs. 57/- as late fee charges (in total pending amount shows as 1646/- as per Ex.C-3). Complainant has further placed on record copy of letter Ex.C-5, which shows that the above said letter was written by the complainant to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Rural, Barnala to know the reason that why the amount of Rs. 1590/- has not been deposited in the Account No. 3005657643 and on this letter the opposite party reported that the above said payment is not received in the Account No. 3005657643. The complainant further placed on record legal notice and postal receipt Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-7, which shows that the complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite party through her  Counsel. Complainant also placed on record copies of whatsapp chat Ex.C-8. 

9. On the other hand, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Garima Budhiraja Arya Ex.O.P-1, which is nothing but word to word repetition of written version filed by the opposite party. The opposite party also placed on record copy of authority letter Ex.O.P-2. Copy of charge back request Ex.O.P-3, which shows that the opposite party return of transaction amount to PSPCL on the very same day. The opposite party further placed on record copy of Wallet Statement Ex.O.P-4, which shows that on 24.6.2022 the amount of Rs. 1590/- was refunded to the complainant's Mobikwik Wallet. Further, the opposite party placed on record Email Ex.O.P-5, which shows that on 8.7.2022 the opposite party vide email redressed the grievance of the complainant in connection to the alleged refund and nothing remain due against the respondent. 

10. So, from the perusal of the file it is established that the complainant on 2.2.2022 credited an amount of Rs. 1600/- in the wallet of the opposite party vide transaction ID No. 355403714a485 and paid the above said amount of Rs. 1590/- to electricity department through platform of opposite party vide transaction ID No. MK01762932480 which was was immediately debited from the wallet account of complainant. Further, on 12.3.2022 the complainant received an another bill raised by the electricity department relating to period 19.1.2022 to 12.3.2022, where concerned official raised a demand of Rs. 1590/- being due amount relating to the previous bill alongwith an amount of Rs. 57/- which was charged as late fees despite the fact that the amount of Rs. 1590/- was earlier paid by the complainant through platform of opposite party which was not credited in the account of PSPCL by opposite party. It is admitted fact by the opposite party that on 28.3.2022 the complainant raised a dispute on the above mentioned transaction through the platform of respondent and on the same day respondent raised a request for charge back (return of transaction amount) to PSPCL and on 24.6.2022 the disputed transaction amount has already been refunded in the Mobikwik Wallet of the complainant and the respondent vide email dated 8.7.2022 apprised the complainant regarding resolution of the complainant's grievance. Therefore, Email/correspondences placed on record by the parties reflects the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for delaying the process of crediting/refunding the amount of the complainant and the opposite party resolved the grievance of the complainant at a very belated stage i.e. on 24.6.2022 after filing the present complaint. In order to prove her case the complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in case titled One Mobikwik Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Vipul Sharma in Appeal No. 184 of 2018, vide which the Hon'ble State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh held that in this world of technology, such an act is to be termed only as deficient service. Contention of Counsel for the appellant that qua failed transaction, appellant would come to know only when it is intimated either by the person making payment or the person who has not received the payment for whom it was made, is totally unacceptable. Software should be such that immediately on failure of transaction it should be notified to the appellant or similarly situated operator and immediate action should have been taken. In such e-platform transaction, it is only click of mouse which matters. All transactions are automatically updated and intimation is sent through self generated messages. For failure in such like cases, fault lies on the service provider i.e. appellant. The Hon'ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 

11. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 5,500 as consolidated amount of compensation & litigation expenses to the complainant. 

12. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

13. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       27th Day of October, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member