Haryana

Karnal

CC/107/2019

Karamveer Mandhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paytm Payments Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Karambir Mandhan

20 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 107 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.25.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 20.01.2020

 

Karamveer Mandhan aged about 42 years, son of Shri Jasmer Singh, resident of House no.12, Krishna Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Paytm Payments Bank, through its Authorized Officer, Regd. Office: 1^st floor, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19;

2. Paytm Payments Bank, through its Authorized Officer, Cooperate office: One 97 Communications Ltd., B-121, Sector-5, Noida, 201 301 (U.P.)

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Complainant in person.

                Ms. Seema Bhardwaj Advocate for opposite parties.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has made a transaction on dated 24.05.2018 through OP to one Mr. Sanjay Sharma at Mussorrie (Uttrakhand) regarding booking of a room in his hotel for payment of Rs.5200/- vide transaction ID no.814414559770. When the complainant contacted said Sanjay Sharma regarding the receiving of said payment but he told that no such amount has been credited in his account but the said amount debited from the account of the complainant. After that the complainant made another transaction of the same amount on the very next day i.e. on 25.05.2018, vide transaction ID no.19019243381 which was duly received by said Sanjay Sharma. Thereafter, complainant made complaints to the OPs on 12.09.2018 but the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and on 19.09.2018 finally the OP refused to credit the said amount of Rs.5200/- into the account of the complainant. The payment made by the complainant on 24.05.2018 should be credited back in the paytm Wallet of the complainant but the same has not credited back in the account of complainant till date. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OPs provide facility to its customer to avail Wallet services as well as to open Savings Account through its online platform. The complainant in the present case, after categorically accepted the terms and conditions of OPs, accepted to avail services of Paytm Wallet product of OPs herein. In the present case that the complainant has made a transaction on 24.05.2018 through OPs payment platform, whereby a sum of Rs.5200/- had been transferred, in favour of one Mr. Sanjay Sharma, vide transaction ID 814414559770. It is further pleaded that the said transaction had not been successfully credited into the account of Mr. Sanjay Sharma. In addition to this the complainant has further stated in the present complaint that he had repeatedly approached OPs for resolution of the issue in respect of non-credit of said transaction, however, till date no resolution could be provided by OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 25.09.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Abrahamraj Swamy Ex.OPW/A and closed the evidence on 04.12.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The complainant has made a transaction on 24.05.2018 through OP to one Mr. Sanjay Sharma at Mussorrie regarding booking of a room in his hotel for payment of Rs.5200/-, vide Ex.C1 but said Shri Sanjay Sharma told the complainant that no such amount has been credited in his account. The said amount has been debited from the account of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant made another transaction on next day vide receipt Ex.C2. The amount has been debited from the bank account of the complainant which proved from the bank statement of the complainant as Ex.C3. The complainant requested OP to refund the amount of Rs.5200/- which has been wrongly withheld by the OP but OP heard the genuine request of the complainant.

7.             As per the version of the OP they had credited the amount of Rs.5200/- in the account of Mr. Sanjay Sharma and there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. If there is any deficiency on the part of Mr. Sanjay Sharma.

8.             During the course of evidence, learned counsel for OP tendered only affidavit Ex.OPW/A and no documents had been tendered/exhibited to prove that the said payment has been credited in the account of Mr. Sanjay Sharma. Thus, without any proof, it cannot be held that the said payment had been credited in the account of Mr. Sanjay Sharma. The payment received by OP twice had not been denied.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund Rs.5200/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2200/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:20.01.2020                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

       

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                           Member