Hyderabad Consumer District Commission Directs Paytm To Pay Rs. 3,000 For Deficiency Of Service, Also Awards Litigation Cost
The Hyderabad District Consumer Redressal Commission bench, consisting M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member), and J. Shyamala (Member), has directed Paytm to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for the mental distress caused to a consumer. The case involved a situation where the consumer's account was debited while doing a Paytm transaction, but the amount was not transferred to...
The Hyderabad District Consumer Redressal Commission bench, consisting M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member), and J. Shyamala (Member), has directed Paytm to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for the mental distress caused to a consumer. The case involved a situation where the consumer's account was debited while doing a Paytm transaction, but the amount was not transferred to the intended recipient, indicating a deficiency in service.
Brief Facts:
Mavarpu Parmesh (“consumer”) installed the Paytm app through the Google Play Store. He relied on the app for making payments and transferring money. However, on September 15, 2022, around 9:19 A.M., he encountered a problem. Despite transferring Rs.12,000/- to his friend, B. Srinivas (“recipient”), the money never reached its intended destination. The consumer’s Paytm App was linked to his SBI Bank Account, but the transaction showed deductions without any transmission to the recipient's account. Concerned, he contacted both the recipient and Paytm customer service representative, but the issue remained unresolved.
Despite reassurances of a refund, he received no resolution or compensation. Frustrated by the lack of response, he sought assistance from his banker and the recipient's banker. However, the bank statements of the consumer and the recipient only reflected the deduction, with no credit or reversal. As a result, the consumer filed a consumer complaint against Paytm in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (III).
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission highlighted that Paytm authorities failed to appear before the Commission and respond to the complainant's allegations within the specified time. Consequently, the commission found Paytm liable for their inadequate services, causing mental distress to the consumer, and violating the agreed terms. Furthermore, the commission noted that despite the complainant's follow-up, Paytm failed to reimburse the amount promptly. The commission relied on the memo filed by the consumer on June 5, 2023 providing evidence of a six-month delay in receiving the reimbursement, further substantiating the deficient service.
Thus, the commission ruled in favour of the consumer, directing Paytm to pay Rs 2,000 as compensation for the delayed transaction and Rs 1,000 as litigation costs within 45 days.
Case: Mavarpu Parmesh vs Paytm
Case No.: C.C.No.806 of 2022
Counsel for the Complainant(s): Mr. Praveen Puram
Counsel for the Respondent: Absent