Delhi

East Delhi

CC/96/2020

SOMDUTT MANCHANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAYTM - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2020

ORDER

22.09.2020

Complaint Case No.: 96/2020

Somnath Manchanda vs. Paytm Limited

 

 

Present: Mrs. Kiran Yadav, Counsel for the Complainant

 

On the last date of hearing, we have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel Shri Naresh Yadav for the complainant.  The case of the complainant is as he has received a phone call on 06.08.2019 on his mobile no. 9899763111 from a person who has identified himself as an executive of M/s Paytm Ltd. (OP-1) and asked the complainant to update the KYC of the complainant’s paytm account. 

It is stated by the complainant that after receiving the said call, a sum of Rs. 92,000/- was fraudulently debited from his account, which is maintained at Punjab and Sindh Bank, Delhi    (OP-2).  The said bank account is apparently connected to the paytm account of the complainant. 

After the said amount was debited from the complainant’s bank account, he lodged a complaint with OP-1 vide complaint no. 134442389.  The complainant has also informed about the fraudulent withdrawal from his bank account to Branch Manager of OP-2.  Although, the complainant has not indicated about what information he has shared with the said caller, the police complaint filed by him which is a part of the complaint clearly indicates that he received a phone call from one number 6297640490 from a person who identified himself as an Officer of the Paytm and he asked for certain information.  The complainant also admits in the police complaint that he has shared his phone number and some information with the said caller in the pretext of continuing use of his paytm account.  Thereafter, the money was fraudulently debited from his account.  The complainant has also indicated in the police complaint that he has also received two more phone calls from two different numbers as well which are 8420194979 and 7074274712 for the same purpose.

It is a clear case of fraud whereby the caller has impersonated himself as an employee of OP-1 and has committed a fraud to the complainant.  However, it is also a fact that in the said fraud, the complainant has also contributed by disclosing the vital information about his account to the caller without verifying the antecedents of the caller in question.  RBI as well as banks and operator’s wallets/payment banks also, by way of advertisements and communications to its customers, clarify that no such caller should be entertained as tele-callers are not authorized to conduct KYC of the customer. 

Further, in the police complaint, the complainant has also admitted that he has shared certain information with the caller.  The negligence is also on the part of the complainant and when there is a contributory negligence by the complainant, he cannot point fingers at the OPs and claim for any relief.

Hence, on account of contributory negligence by the complainant and also in view of the fact that the complainant has not verified the antecedents of the callers before sharing vital information about the accounts, we do not see any negligence or unfair trade practice on behalf of the OPs.  As a result, this complaint is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

Copy of the order be given to the party.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(P.N. Tiwari)                                                                                             (Divyajyoti Jaipuriar)   Member                                                                                                                 President