Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/51

Bheem Sain Rampal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab state Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:51 dated 03.02.2021.                                                 Date of decision: 20.04.2023.

Sh. Bheem Sain Rampal S/o. Sh. Amir Chand Rampal, R/o. H. No.22, Phase-3, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Model Town, Ludhiana, 141002 through its authorized signatory.
2. National Payment Corporation of India, (Bhim App) Regd. Office-1001-A, B Wing, 10^th Floor, The Capital Bandra Kura Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400051 through its authorized signatory.
3. State Bank of India, SCO-18, Ferozegandhi Market, Ludhiana, Punjab 141001 through its authorized signatory.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Bheem Sain Rampal in person.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Mandeep Sharma, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Suresh Shounik, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Gurpreet Singh Arora, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is having an electricity connection No.3002633234 under domestic tariff at Punjabi Bagh, Jawadi, Dugri, Ludhiana and has been paying electricity consumption charges as per bills issued by opposite party No.2. The complainant stated that he is having savings bank account No.30070654083 with opposite party No.2 i.e. State Bank of India having sufficient balance therein to make online transactions. The complainant has also installed the BHIM UPI in his mobile No.9815114685 for making online payments/transaction and same is often being used by him. The complainant received bill dated 18.08.2020 issued by opposite party No.1 and paid the said bill amount of Rs.12,860/- on 28.08.2020 through opposite party No.2 and the payment was deducted from his savings account against transaction ID 024115487238 issued by opposite party No.2 on 28.08.2020. Thereafter, the complainant received message on his mobile from opposite party No.2 that “The transaction was declined and the money will be reversed in the next 3 working days” but the reason for decline of transaction was not disclosed. The opposite parties failed to reverse the payment in next 3 working days as per their message and in order to avoid disconnection of his electricity connection as well as penalties, the complainant paid the electricity bill through Paytm App bill of Rs.12,860/- on 01.09.2020 to opposite party No.1 through his savings account maintained with opposite party No.3. The complainant further stated that he approached opposite party No.3 and asked them whether they have received back the said payment from opposite party, then opposite epartyNo.3 told that till date they have not received back the payment and promised that they will ask opposite party No.2 to return the payment but it failed to do so. It is the duty of the bank to protect the money of their account holders and to ensure whether the transaction has been safely reached to the concerned party. The complainant also lodged complaints to opposite party No.2 on 18.09.2020, 26.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 vide reference No. 223460822500, 417733810056, 819867567471 and in reply to these complaints, opposite party No.2 gave reply that “as per the bank, the transaction Amt is credited to Merchants A/C.” On 07.10.2020, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and submitted application dated 05.10.2020 with related documents for crediting the amount of Rs.12,860/- in his account and opposite party No.1 told that sometimes the online payment is not credited in the account of electricity connection holder and remained un-adjustable in the account of opposite party No.1 which is belonging to the Patiala office so within week the said amount will be credited in the electricity accou9nt of the complainant but till date opposite party No.1 neither credited the said amount nor gave any reply to the complainant. Then the complainant approached Mr. Kamal, officer of Patiala office of opposite party No.1 who said to mail on their mail id

2.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement in which it assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of cause of action; suppression of material facts by the complainant etc. Opposite party No.1 stated that it has been impleaded without any sufficient cause. It has received the amount once against the bill for Rs.12,860/- dated 18.08.2020 on 01.09.2020 which was shown and credited in the electric connection account No.3002633234 and except the said payment, no amount from the account of the complainant was credited or debited.

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, opposite party No.1 admitted the receipt of application dated 05.10.2020 from the complainant and thereafter, it has checked the entire record about the entry of Rs.12,860/- and found that the amount of Rs.12,860/- was received only once on 01.09.2020 and except this payment, no amount from the account of the complainant was credited or debited. Opposite party No.1 also admitted that the complainant approached their office at Patiala. Opposite party has denied that there is any deficiency in service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Opposite party No.2 filed separate written statement and assailed the complainant by taking preliminary objections. Opposite party No.2 stated it is a non-profit company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (corresponding Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in operating retail payment system(s) pursuant to authorization granted by the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. It provides electronic infrastructure for processing, transmitting, and clearing of transactions received from its participating member banks. Opposite party No.2 makes its electronic payment systems such as National Financial Switch (NFS) for ATMs of banks, Aadhaar Enabled Payments System (AEPS), RuPay Card Payment System (RuPay). Immediate Payment Service (IMPS), Cheque Truncation System (CTS), National Automated Clearing House (NACH); Unified Payment Interface (UPI), *99# Service (USSD), Bharat Bill Payment System (BBPS); and National Electronic Toll Collection (NETC) available to its participating member banks for transmitting transactions electronically from one participating member to another participating member of its payment network. Opposite partyNo.2 further submitted that the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed based on the sole ground that opposite party No.2 has no role in the actual debit and credit of funds in the bank account of the remitter and the beneficiary or with respect to the reversal of the amount debited to the Complainant's account by Opposite Party No. 3. The complaint had initiated the transfer of funds for the payment of utility bill issued by opposite party No. 1 by using BHIM Application and on failure of the transaction, the BHIM Application correctly updated the complainant with the failed status of the transaction. Opposite party No.2 only acts as an intermediary to, mainly, route various instructions and confirmations about the said transaction between the bank of the remitter and beneficiary electronically, settle the transaction between the banks participating in UPI and lastly, provide the user of BHIM Application i.e. the remitter, an update on the status of the transaction (i.e. update if the transaction was successful, failed or pending as the case may be). Further, concerning the processing of a financial transaction initiated through the BHIM Application, opposite party No.2 only acts based on the transaction details entered by the user i.e. the Complainant in this case (such as amount to be transferred, UPI ID/account details of the beneficiary, etc.), the confirmation and/or response received by it from the respective banks of the remitter and beneficiary; and actual debit in the bank account of the remitter and credit of funds in the bank account of the beneficiary is done by the bank of the remitter and beneficiary, respectively. No debit or credit in the bank account of the remitter or beneficiary is carried out by opposite party No.2 because it does not have any access or visibility to the remitter's bank account or beneficiary's bank account. Opposite party No.2 further submitted that it does not receive any actual funds from the remitter's bank or beneficiary's bank in the course of routing the transaction instructions through the BHIM Application. It has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation and there is no role/ responsibility of opposite party No.2 in the present case.

                   Opposite party No.2 further stated that the amount of Rs.12,860/- had been transferred by the complainant through their BHIM Application and the amount was debited from his account but not credited to the account of beneficiary i.e. opposite party No.2 but after receiving the consumer complaint from the complainant and upon investigating the matter on good faith basis, it has come to its knowledge that the transaction amount of Rs.12,860/- was refunded to the complainant’s account. 

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.2 has denied that there is any deficiency in service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Opposite party No.3 also filed separate written statement in which it assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; misrepresentation of facts; lack of jurisdiction; the complaint being barred by limitation; lack of cause of action etc. Opposite party No.2 stated that the complainant has paid the amount by using his mobile phone and moreover the amount was debited at the instance of the complainant himself and same has been debited vide using one time password or any other secure way which has been opted by the complainant himself. The complainant has been wrongly blaming opposite party No.3 for the said transaction. 

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, opposite party No.2 admitted the deduction of Rs.12,860/- from the account of the complainant on 28.08.2020 against the transaction ID UPI/DR/024115487238/BHIM/BIL/SBIN /BILPAY.SB/NO RE and the same is shown in his statement of account. Further opposite party No.3 admitted that an amount of Rs.12,860/- was deducted from the account of the complainant on 01.09.2020 vide debit card-OTHPG 814954 PTM*PAYTM NOIDA and the same was shown in the account statement of the complainant. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 for obtaining statement of account of his bank account. Opposite party No.3 has denied that there is any deficiency in service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In support of his claim, the complainant the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1   is the copy of bill dated 18.08.2020, Ex. C2 is the statement of account of the complainant, Ex. C3 and Ex. C4 are the copies of screen shot of UPI transactions, Ex. C5 to Ex. C9 are the SMS messages, Ex. C10 is the copy of application dated 05.10.2020 of complainant to PSPCL, Ex. C11 is the copy of email dated 04.01.2021, Ex. C12 is the copy of email dated 08.01.2021, Ex. C13 is the copy of email dated 30.12.2020, Ex. C14 is the copy of  case details, Ex. C15 is the copy of email dated 30.12.2020 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA1 of Sh. M.P. Singh, Additional Superintending Engineer P.S.P.C.L., Local Divisional Office, Model Town, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1/1 is the copy of account statement of the complainant, Ex. R1/2 is the copy of email, Ex. R1/3 is the copy of screen shot of UPI transaction, Ex. R1/4 is the copy of SMS messages and closed the evidence.

                   The counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex. Ra-2 of Sh. Dilip Asbe, Authorized representative of opposite party No.2 and closed the evidence. The counsel for opposite party No.3 also tendered affidavit Ex. RA/3 of Sh. Sauravjit Dev, branch Manager of opposite party No.3 along with Ex. R1 copy of statement of account of the complainant and closed the evidence.

7.                 We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, rejoinder, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavits and documents produced on record by  the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by opposite party No.2.

8.                The complainant was having an electricity connection No.3002633234 and he was maintaining mobile No.9815114685 having BHIM UPI app for making online payment/transactions which was linked to his savings account No.30070654083 with State Bank of India opposite party No.3. On 18.08.2020, the complainant received an electricity bill Ex. C1 amounting to Rs.12,860/- which was payable on or before 02.09.2020.  On 28.8.2020, the complainant made online payment and amount of Rs.12,860/- was deducted from his account which has also been reflected in the statement of account Ex. C2. The relevant entry in the statement of account Ex. C2 is reproduced as under:-     

However, on the same day at 03.44 PM message Ex. C3 was received by the complainant on his mobile number from opposite party No.2 where it is mentioned that the transaction was declined and the money will be reversed in next 3 working days. Ex. C3 also reflected that the payment was meant for opposite party No.1 and it was effected through  UPI ID Further it also confirmed that the amount has been debited from the concerned account of State Bank of India.  Another message Ex. C4 also showed that the bill pay amounting to Rs.12,860/- was meant for opposite party No.1 but its transaction has failed. Thereafter, in response to calls made by the complainant, four messages Ex. C5 to Ex. C7 were received, which are reproduced as under:

Perusal of Ex. C7 shows that it stipulates that the transaction has been credited to merchant’s account. While next message shows on the same page that the complaint has been registered and they will get back to the complainant soon with transaction status.  Later on, perusal of the messages dated 26.09.2020 (Ex. C8) and 29.09.2020 (Ex. C9) shows that feedback was also provided to the complainant. Besides that the complainant had approached opposite party No.1 by making a representation Ex. C10 and he has also sent emails to opposite party No.3 but no positive response was ever elicited from opposite party No.2 and 3. Opposite party No.1 i.e. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited was very categoric in its written statement as well as in evidence lead that it has not received the amount remitted on 28.08.2020. However, PSPCL acknowledged the payment of Rs.12,860/-  received on 01.09.2020 against the bill in question. Even it is opposite party No.2 and 3 who after initially acknowledging the payment to the merchant’s account through messages, did not provide or brought on record any document or transaction number whereby both could show that the payment has been made to opposite party No.1. So as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.

9.                Opposite party No.2 while filing the reply and making the contentions before this Commission, took shelter of legal objections but in para No.7(a) and 7(e) of the written statement admitted that on their investigation, it has come to their knowledge that transaction amount of Rs.12,860/- has been refunded to complainant’s account.

10.              Opposite party No.3 bank in para No.4 of their written statement has admitted the deduction of amount of Rs.12,860/- through its ID UPI/DR/024115487238/BHIM/BIL/SBIN /BILPAY.SB/NO RE. So chronology of aforesaid events inevitably suggests that the amount of Rs.12,860/- was deducted from the account of the complainant through UPI ID of opposite party No.3 bank. It was for opposite party No.3 bank to provide transaction number either  to the complainant for the purpose of further enquiry or investigation and even at their own end they could have referred the  dispute to their IT cell for its resolution. Opposite party No.2, a digital platform was well within its scientific competence and was under obligation to trace out the trail of payment and to find out who actually beneficiary was but both opposite party No.2 and 3 did not bother to make efforts despite having technologically and scientifically expertise to know whereabouts of the transaction.

11.              On the other hand, the complainant ran from pillar to post and approached the opposite parties for redressal of his grievance but of no avail. Certainly, there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and 3. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it will be just and appropriate if opposite party No.2 and 3 shall jointly and severally refund the amount of Rs.12,860/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deduction till its actual payment and also to pay composite cost of Rs.5,000/-.

12.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with order that opposite party No.2 and 3 shall jointly and severally refund the amount of Rs.12,860/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deduction till its actual payment. Opposite party No.2  and 3 shall also jointly and severally pay composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.1 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (SanjeevBatra) Member                        Member                                       President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.

Bheem Sain Rampal Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. CC/21/51

Present:       Complainant Sh. Bheem Sain Rampal in person.

                   Sh. Mandeep Sharma, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh. Suresh Shounik, Advocate for OP2.

                   Sh. Gurpreet Singh Arora, Advocate for OP3.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with order that opposite party No.2 and 3 shall jointly and severally refund the amount of Rs.12,860/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deduction till its actual payment. Opposite party No.2  and 3 shall also jointly and severally pay composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.1 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)             (SanjeevBatra)

Member                         Member                            President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.