IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 19th day of July, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 216/2021 (Filed on 23-09-2021)
Petitioner : Girish K.G.
S/o. Gopalakrishnan Nair,
Kuttiyanickal House,
Edamattam P.O.
Poovarani village, Meenachil,
Kottayam – 686578
(Adv. Akash K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite party : Oxygen The Digital Shop,
Chiramel Buildings,
Kaduvamuzhi,
Erattupetta – 686 121.
Rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant had purchased a tablet computer from the opposite party on 12-09-2021 for an amount of Rs.15,500/-. The complainant made the payment via UPI, but the executives of the opposite party did not acknowledged the payment and insisted for making the payment again to the personal account of one of the executives. Then only they will deliver the product. Complainant informed them that the amount is debited from his account and is seen credited to the account of the opposite party. The opposite party was not ready to check with their bank and insisted for the second payment. The complainant was forced to repeat the payment of Rs.15,500/- to the account of one of the executives of the opposite party. After receiving the second payment, they delivered the product to the complainant. The opposite party then promised that they will credit the amount back to the account of the complainant once the amount is seen credited to the account of the opposite party. The opposite party received the first payment at 5.49 pm on 12-09-2021 and the second payment at 5.59 pm on 12-09-2021. But they had returned the second payment to the complainant only on 14-09-2021 after several demands from the complainant. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
As per the version of the opposite party even though the complainant made the payment through ‘Google pay’ platform, the payment was not reflected on the account, on verification on the spot. Then the complainant was requested to repeat the payment to the personal account of one of the executives enabling the opposite party to return the amount to the complainant as and when the final payment seen credited to the account of the opposite party. The complainant, then made the second payment and on confirmation of the second payment, the product was delivered to the complainant. The Google pay / OTP platform is inherently having a risk of getting confirmation and as far as the opposite party is concerned only after verification and confirmation of the bank account, the payment can be confirmed. In case of any error occurs in payment process, it may take up to 2 days to know whether the amount was actually credited to the beneficiary account or returned back to the customer account. The date of payment was happened to be Sunday and the opposite party had no option to cross check directly with the bank.
Thereafter, on confirmation of the payment to the opposite party the second payment made by the complainant was returned on 14-09-2021. On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and version of the opposite party, we would like to consider the following points.
(1)Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
(2) If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
On the basis of the complaint and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a computer tablet from the opposite party on 12-09-2021 for an amount of Rs.15,500/-. The complainant made the payment through ‘Google pay’. But the opposite party failed to confirm the payment. As per the demand from the opposite party staff, the complainant made a second payment of Rs.15,500/- to the personal account of one of the executives of the opposite party. On getting the second payment, the opposite party delivered the product to the complainant. The opposite party promised to the complainant that as soon as the first payment made to the account of the opposite party seen confirmed, the second payment will be returned to the complainant. But the opposite party had returned the second payment only on 14-09-2021.
Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dated 12-09-2021 for the purchase of the Acer Tablet for a total amount of Rs.15,500/-. The payment information is given as card:Rs.15,500/- SIB Credit Card A/c card. Ext.A2 is the print out of the screen shots of the UPI payment which shows that the UPI transaction with ID No.125512330714, Fi transaction ID:F8EfcLQyaeq8, transaction made : IPI from Grish K.G. to Oxygen The Digital Shop, Erattupetta for Rs.15,500/- successful September 12 at 5.49 pm. Ext.A3 is the printout of the message showing transaction amount Rs.15,500/-. Transaction Id:S9004297, Account : 99980101544588 date: 12 September 2021 at 5.59 pm.
On the basis of the above findings, it is clear that opposite party received the payment at 5.49 pm on 12-09-2021 and the second payment at 5.59 pm on 12-09-2021 and the opposite party had returned the second payment to the complainant only on 14-09-2021. Considering the fact that 12-09-2021, being a Sunday, the opposite party was not able to cross check the receipt of the payment with the bank, but the opposite party failed to verify the receipt of the payment on the next working day, ie. 13-09-2021 Monday. The opposite party had returned the second payment only on 14-09-2021 to the complainant.
The act of the opposite party in not verifying their account timely and not crediting the second payment to the complainant as promised is deficiency in service on their part.; we allow the complaint and pass the following Order.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation to the complainant.
- The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. In default, the amount will carry 6% interest from the date of this Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of July, 2022.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.12-09-2021 issued by opposite party
A2 – Copy of screen shot of UPI payment of Rs.15500 at 12-09-21 at 5.49 pm
A3 – Printout message of transaction of Rs.15,500/- dated:12-09-21 at 5.59 pm
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
