Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 393.
Instituted on : 10.07.2017.
Decided on : 31.12.2019.
- Ashok Kumar, aged 34 years, son of Shri Raja Ram, resident of House No.262/1, Sanjay Colony, Rohtak(Haryana).
- Narender son of Shri Raja Ram, resident of House No.262/1, Sanjay Colony, Rohtak(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhiwani Stand, Rohtak through its Manager.
- Paytm, Rohtak Haryana through its Manager.
- Paytm B-121, Sector-5, Noida (U.P.), through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Parveen, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri A.K. Dua, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Shri Parveen Sehgal, Advocate for the opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant no.1 had transferred the amount of Rs.5,000/- through Paytm wallet under order 2338727756 on dated 7.12.2016 in the account of complainant no.2. The alleged amount of Rs.5,000/- has been debited from the account of complainant no.1 through Paytm but the same was not credited in the account of complainant no.2 till date. The complainant made complaints from dated 22.2.2017 to 7.5.2017 but no action was taken by the opposite parties. The complainant requested to the opposite parties to revert back the said amount of the complainants but despite his repeated requests, the opposite parties have not paid the alleged amount to the complainants. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 submitted in its reply that it is correct that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was debited from the account of complainant no.1 on 07.12.2016 through Paytm. The answering respondent has nothing to do with the same because as per record of answering respondent, the transaction was complete and successful. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Opposite party no.2 and 3 in their reply has submitted that the transaction of Rs.5,000/- was done on 12.7.2016 through Paytm wallet. However, the transaction failed and the amount got debited from the user account i.e. complainant account with opposite party no.1. On inquiry, it was told by the Acquirer Bank i.e. HDFC that the transaction declined under “Host Time Out” at their end. The transaction was not completed and the money was struck with the Acquirer Bank. The opposite party no.2 & 3 being never ever in receipt of the said amount. Hence, there is no liability of opposite party no.2 and 3. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 15.3.2019 and stated that his complaint may kindly be read as affidavit. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, and document Ex.R3/1 and has closed his evidence on dated 4.9.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, and documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/4 and has closed the same on 10.7.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, as per complainant no.1, he had transferred the amount of Rs.5,000/- through Paytm wallet on dated 7.12.2016 in the account of complainant no.2, the alleged amount has been debited from the account of complainant no.1 through Paytm but the same was not credited in the account of complainant no.2 till date. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has stated that the transaction was successful and the amount of Rs.5000/- has been debited from the account of complainant on 07.12.2016. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in para no.6 of their reply has submitted that the transaction of Rs.5000/- done on 07.12.2016 failed and the amount got debited from the account of complainant with opposite party No.1. It has been admitted by the paytm vide its email dated 10.01.2017 at page no.2 of document Ex.C1 that the transaction to add Rs.5000/- in paytm valet under order no.2338727756 was unsuccessful and the respondent no.2 & 3 also apologies for the inconvenience of the same and also assured the complainant that the amount would be credited in his account in the next 7 to 14 working days. After that the amount was not credited in the account of complainant till the date of filing of the present complaint. The perusal of Ex.R3/1 itself shows that the amount has been credited in the account of complainant on dated 09.05.2018. Meaning thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 & 3 as the transaction should have been completed well within time without any technical fault but the same was not completed despite repeated requests of the complainant. As per statement made by the complainant before this Forum on dated 16.12.2019, he has received the amount of Rs.5000/- on dated 09.05.2018 which has been mentioned in Ex.R3/1.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 & 3 to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) on account of litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which, opposite party No. 2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision till its realization to the complainant.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.12.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
