IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of April, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S, President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 13/2023 (Filed on 13-01-2023)
Petitioner : Joshy R.
Namburackal House,
Anicad P.O.
Kottayam – 686503
(Adv. Joseph Raveendran)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Paytm,
B-121, Sector 5,
Noida, Uther Pradesh
Pin – 210 301.
(Adv. Manu J.Varappally)
(2) Linolf Joseph,
S/o. Joseph,
Koottezhath House,
Chakkalamuttu Road,
North Fort Gate,
Thripunithara Nadama Village,
Thripunithar, Ernakulam – 682301.
(Adv. Chandramohan V.)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant on 13-12-2022 transferred Rs.30,000/-to his business partner that is the second opposite party through the first opposite party Paytm bank. It is alleged in the complaint that the said amount has been debited from his account however the same could not be credited to the account of the second opposite party. So the complainant had to pay another Rs.30,000/- to the second opposite party . The act of the first opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and thereby the complainant had suffered financial loss. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant in various heads.
After the admission of the complaint, the notice was duly sent to the opposite parties. Though the first opposite party appeared before this Commission on 12-4-2023, they did not care to file version within the statutory period. Hence the first opposite party is declared as ex party. The second opposite party appeared before this Commission and filed version contenting as follows:
The complainant is not the business partner of the second opposite party. The second opposite party had no business transaction with the complainant. During the year 2022 the complainant had purchased articles worth Rs.30,000/- from the second opposite party. At that time the complainant informed that he would pay the amount through online transaction via phone pay scanner. But when the second opposite party informed the complainant about the non- receipt of the amount through online transaction, the complainant paid the said amount by cash. The second opposite party did not aware of the payment through Paytm.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked exhibits A1 to A4. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the second opposite party. 1st opposite party filed one document marked as Ext.B1.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and cost?
Point Nos.1 and 2
The specific case of the complainant is that on 13-12-2022 he had transferred Rs.30,000/- to the second opposite party who is the business partner of the complainant. Though an amount of Rs.30,000/- was debited from his account however the same could not be credited to the account of the second opposite party.
On going through the Exhibit A1 which is the message from the first opposite party we can see that it is stated in the exhibit A1 that the payment was successful and the transaction id was 2022122132049340052 on 13-12-2022 at 8:49 PM. Exhibit A2 is the computer copy of the transaction through the Yono application of the State Bank of India from the account of the complainant. On perusal of exhibit A2 we can see that there was a transaction on 13-12-2022 and an amount of Rs.30,000/ was transferred to the second opposite party through the first opposite party. On going through the exhibit A4 which is a statement of account of the complainant which is maintained with the State Bank of India Pallikathodu branch, we can see that on 13-12-2022 an amount of Rs.30,000/- was debited from his account vide UPI/ DR/ 2347635038755/ 4695898162092. On a comparison of Transaction ID stated in the exhibit A2 and A4 we can see that both are the one and same. The statement of account of the second opposite party produced by the complainant but not marked, which is maintained with the Axis Bank for the period from 12- 12-2022 to 9-1 -2023. On scrutiny of this document we can see that there was no debit of any amount to the account of the second opposite party on 13-12-2022 through the first opposite party. However, the first opposite party credited an amount of Rs.30,770/- in the account of the second opposite party on 14 -12- 2022. It is further recorded in the above said statement that the said amount was credited to the account of the second opposite party by “One97 communications limited”.
Even though the first opposite party is exparte at the time of the argument the council for the first opposite party argued that the Rs.30,000/- which was transferred by the complainant through the first opposite party was credited to the account of the second opposite party along with another amount of Rs.770/-. However as discussed earlier, we can see that the 1st opposite party credited Rs.30,770/- to the account of the second opposite party on 14-12-2022 which was transferred through the first opposite party by One 97 Communications Limited. On a detailed examination the above statement of account of the second opposite party we cannot see any amount of Rs.30,000/- was credited by the first opposite party to the account of the second opposite party.
Section 2 of (42) Consumer Protection Act 2019 define “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.
Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant availed the service of the first opposite party to transfer some amount to the account of the second opposite party and the first opposite party come within the purview of the service provider as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Section 2 (11) of the Act defines deficiency to means “any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes (a) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person to the consumer and (b) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer. Thus we are of the opinion that the first opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not crediting the Rs.30,000/- to the account of the second opposite party which was transferred by the complainant by availing the service of the first opposite party.
It is proved by exhibit A 3 that the complainant had lodged a complaint with the first opposite party regarding the non-credit of the amount transferred through the first opposite party. But the first opposite party did not care to redress the grievance of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the second opposite party in the version admitted that any amount was not transferred by the complainant through the first opposite party and an amount of Rs.30,000/- has been given by the complainant by cash. Therefore it is evident that complainant had suffered much hardship and financial loss due to the deficiency in service from the part of the first opposite party for which the first opposite party is liable to compensate.
In the result, we allow the complaint and pass the following order:
- We here by direct the first opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the compliant along with interest @ 9% per annum from 13- 12- 2022 till the date of realisation.
- We here by direct the first opposite party to pay rRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complaint as compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party and to pay Rs.3,500/-(Rupees Three thousand five hundred only) as the cost of this litigation.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this Order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S, President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Printout of payment of Rs.30,000/-
A2 - Copy of the transaction through the Yono application of the State Bank of India from the account of the complainant.
A3 – G-mail transaction dtd.05-01-2023
A4 – Copy of statement of account of complainant
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Certified copy of Resolution passed by Board of Directors of Paytm
payments Bank Ltd at their meeting held on 22-01-2022
By Order
Assistant Registrar
