Delhi

New Delhi

CC/247/2014

Lakhpat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. CCSO & Paytm Mobile Solution - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                                          (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

     ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

              NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

           Case No.C.C. 247/2014                                                                                                                                Dated:

           In the matter of:

           Lakhpat Ram

           R/o House No. 382, Old Sunday Market Road,

           Near Udai Photo Studio,

           Village Aya Nagar, PO Arjungrah,

           New Delhi-110047

                                                                                                                                                                           …… Complainant

                                                                                                       Versus

 

1. The Chief Customer Service Officer(CCSO)

Punjab National Head Office, - 5 Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Paytm Mobile Solution Ltd.

B-121, Sector 5

Noida -201301, India

 

Through its

Authorised Representative

                                                                                                                                                                      …….Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA- PRESIDENT

 

                                                            ORDER

 

1. That the present complaint is being filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986.

2. That the respondent Opposite Part No. 1 is  a banking institution and the Chief Customer Service Officer (CCSO) is authorized authority to sort out the grievance of its customers.

3. That the respondent opposite party is engaged in the business of running website in the name and style paytm.com basically provided services of on line bill payment/ recharge of mobile coupons/booking of bus ticket/ dish TV recharge, payment postpaid mobile, electricity bill and gas bills etc.

4.  That on 03.10.2013 at about 15:45 complainant accessed the official website paytm.com for recharging the mobile No. 9654884647  (Vodafone) for Rs.300/- with additional Rs. 10/- as services charges (total Rs. 310/-).  After sometime, the said amount was debited from the account maintained with PNB, and thereafter a SMS was also received from the bank at the time i.e. 16:09:12 stating that an amount of Rs.310/- has been debited through internet banking.  In the meantime, the action was under process on the computer and lastly showing the transaction was in queued.  Surprisingly, despite debited the said amount, the mobile was not charged or top up for the said amount, the complainant waited for response for a long but mobile was not top up or charged. 

5. That when the complainant did not receive any response from the company, on the next day i.e. 04.10.2013 at about 7.00 p.m. complainant made a complaint on the paytm.com’s official website stating all the facts  for sorting out the grievance/ problem and requested  for the transfer the money in the account maintained by the complainant with PNB Bank, Aya Nagar Branch, New Delhi-110047.  That on 14.10.2013 the complainant also sent complaint through mail and hard copy was also sent on 09.10.2013 to the OP.

6.  That on 05.10.2013 complainant received a call from Mr. Raveesh from paytm.com’s office that he was investigating his complainant. As his net was not working  so his mobile could not be charged for the said amount. He also stated that his money cannot be transferred back.  After few minutes one Shri. Rajeev Saxena  alleged  officer of the paytm.com spoke to him and stated that he was bound to resolve the issue within 24 hours and ask for the unique No. or the Debit card No. of the complainant.   It is alleged that in the insistence of Mr. Saxena, the complainant disclosed the Debit Card No. to Shri Rajeev.  After disconnecting the mobile complainant shocked to see that there were 5 SMS’s showing on top of the screen of the mobile with the following details.

A) Rs. 4000/- debited at about 16:38:10.

B)  Rs. 3500/- debited at about 16:40:31.

C)  Rs. 3500/- debited at about 16:45:34.

D)  Rs. 3500/- debited at about 16:47:07.

E)  Rs. 193.47/- debited at about 16:55:23.

7. It is alleged that both Shri Rajeev Saxena and Raveesh had played fraud with the complainant of Rs. 14963.47/- . The complainant immediately informed the S.H.O. Police Station Jouna Pur, New Delhi and DD No. 58-B was recorded. He also made a complaint to OP in this respect.  A legal notice was also given dated 05.03.2014.  As the money was not refunded back to the complainant by the OP, hence this complaint.

8. Both the parties were noticed for this complaint. OP No.1 was stated that the complaint is not maintainable and submitted that amount was debited to the account of complainant with OP No. 1 and thereafter the amount mentioned in para (d) and (e) is alleged to be siphoned, misappropriated from the account of the complaint with OP No. 1  by the employees of OP No. 2.  The complaint has deliberately roped in OP No. 1 and there is not defect or deficiency in its service.

9. OP No. 2 in its reply stated that the due amount was debited from his account. It is submitted that after the said debit of Rs. 310/- a successful recharge was done from the sought of answering party and complainant has shown no documentary proved that the recharge was not done.  It is further submitted that no such call from any of the said executive whose name is mentioned in the complaint had been made ever to the complainant. It is submitted  that the complaint has not put any documentary proof to show that either such call was  made from any of the representative of the answering respondent nor it is anywhere shown that the alleged debited  amount of Rs. 14,693.47/- was deposited in the account of respondent no. 2. It is submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and parties filed of their affidavits in evidence.

10. Parties were heard, documents/evidence was perused. The amount was deducted by false representation of cheating at the behest of two employees of OP No. 2 and he has made a complaint to the Police in respect to fraud and cheating by the employees of OP No. 2.  However, at the same time, he admitted that he had given his debit card no. to the alleged employees at their insistence.  Later on, an amount of Rs. 14,963.47/- was withdrawn from his account in different transactions which clearly show that there is no indulgence of OP No. 1 in withdrawn  of the amount from the account of complainant.

 The complainant has alleged fraud and cheating qua some persons and the police complaint was also filed.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the case of fraud and cheating is not covered under Consumer Protection Act.  Moreover, an elaborate evidence and cross-examination of the witness is required to elucidate the truth which cannot be done in the summary procedure under the CP Act.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with a liberty to file the same with the appropriate Forum/ Court as per law.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 26/02/2019.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                          (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                    PRESIDENT

 

   (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                    (HM VYAS)

                  MEMBER                                                                    MEMBER