Failure To Transfer Amount Deducted In An Unsuccessful Transaction, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Paytm Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held One 97 Communications India Limited (Paytm) liable for deficiency in services for failure to reverse the amount after a transaction failure which was reflected as "transaction status failure.” The bench directed it to refund Rs.826.37/- to...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held One 97 Communications India Limited (Paytm) liable for deficiency in services for failure to reverse the amount after a transaction failure which was reflected as "transaction status failure.” The bench directed it to refund Rs.826.37/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- along with Rs.3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
Brief Facts:
Mr Ravinder Kumar (“Complainant”) attempted to book a temporary stall for the Diwali festival from Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh in October 2022. The Complainant was instructed to submit an online form and pay Rs. 812/- for the booking. Upon payment, an additional Rs.15/- was charged by One 97 Communications India Limited (Paytm), but the total amount debited from the Complainant's account was not credited to the Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, the Complainant paid Rs. 812/- through Gpay and it was received by the Municipal Corporation. The Complainant made several communications with the Municipal Corporation and Paytm for resolution but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the Municipal Corporation and Paytm.
In response, the Municipal Corporation explained that the first transaction failed, and the amount was not initially credited to its account. Subsequently, the amount was reflected as "transaction status successful" in the records of the municipal corporation on another transaction. It denied the cause of action set forth by the Complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Paytm didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that an amount of Rs. 826.37/- was debited from the Complainant's account but was not credited to the account of the Municipal Corporation. The status of the transfer of Rs. 812/- was initially recorded as "transaction status failure," indicating that Paytm did not transfer the amount to the Municipal Corporation. It held that the transaction status changed to "transaction status successful" only when the Complainant made a subsequent payment through Gpay. It held that the subject amount remained with Paytm and it didn't reverse the amount in the Complainant's account. The District Commission held that Paytm's actions amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Consequently, the District Commission directed Paytm to refund Rs. 826.37/- to the Complainant along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the transaction, i.e., 19.10.2022, onwards. Paytm was also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.