O R D E R
The complainant has filed instant complaint seeking direction to the opposite party(s) to refund the amount Rs.2652/- by crediting the same in the account of complainant's husband with
1
compound interest from 21.4.2020 till realization and compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment, stress and strain caused to the complainant and Opposite parties be directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.20000/-.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this complaint are that the complainant has been using DTH Airtel services under ID No.3015534663 for the last 6-7 years and used to recharge the DTH account through internet banking facilities (YoNo Life SBI) of State Bank of India Branch Parour (Opposite Party No.2). It is pleaded that the complainant wanted to get the DTH connection recharge for a period of six months, so her husband through his account using internet banking facilities transferred a sum of Rs.2652/- through his Banker i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 to credit the same in the account of DTH, Airtel on 21.04.2020. The above amount of Rs.2652/- has not been credited in the account of DTH Airtel, although the said amount was shown to be debited in the statement of accounts of the husband of complainant. The complainant waited for few days and when no fruitful result was received, the complainant's husband took up the matter with Opposite Party No.2. The Branch Manager, SBI, Parour verbally told the complainant that the amount has been paid against the correct DTH Id and showed the DTH ID No.3015534663 in the statement of account of complainant's husband. Thereafter the husband of the complainant lodged complaint thrice vide Ticket Nos 6504309927, 651478796 and 6515383319. After this, the complainant's husband sent three applications/complaints to DTH Airtel and also filed a complaint dated with SBI Parour (Opposite party No.2) but all in vain. Alleging deficiency in the service on the part of opposite party(s), the complainant has filed the present complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite party(s) No.1&2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, estoppels, locus standi
2
and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the amount so deducted vide transaction No.UH96944053 has been successfully processed to merchant and this fact has time and again been brought in the knowledge of complainant through reply to complaints made to replying opposite party(s). The payment is made on the same day (21-04- 2020) at 6.07pm (Time 18.07) and the status of the payment is success as is evident from the report of payment aggregator service provider which is known as "Oxygen Services India Private Limited" and as such there is no deficiency on the part of the replying opposite party. Opposite parties No.3 & 4 did not appear before this commission and proceeded ex-parte.
4. The complainant has filed rejoinder denying the contents of the reply filed by opposite party(s) No.1 & 2 and reiterating those of complaint.
5. The parties were called upon to produce their evidence in support of their contentions. Complainant in order to prove his case has filed affidavit Ext.CW-1/A in evidence along with documents Annexures C-1 to C-8. On the other hand, opposite party(s) No.1&2 have filed affidavit Ext.OPSW1&2-1 along with documents annexures A to G.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file carefully.
7. Admittedly vide transaction No. UH96944053 Rs.2,652/- was transferred from the complainant's account maintained with opposite party No.2. The said amount was to be credited in the account of DTH Airtel services of opposite party No.4. The said amount was though debited in the account No.00000011530892314 of Sh. Man Chand, husband of complainant, but the same was not credited in the account of DTH service of Airtel. Upon representation by the complainant's husband/complainant vide annexures C-2 to C-7 with the opposite parties, the opposite party No.1 registered the complaint under ticket No.6400349628
3
Annexure-B and in response to this complaint it was intimated to complainant on 09.06.2020 that it has been observed that your transaction has been successfully processed to your merchant. For more details kindly contact your merchant. Closed by Region. Vide annexure-C another complaint No.6504309927 which was also closed on 04.08.2020 herein also response was made by the opposite party No.1 that: we are unable to trace any transaction with the given details by you in your complaint, Kindly provide us the correct transaction details like date and amount of transaction reference number to verify the status and for better assistance in this regards. Closed by region. Third complaint was registered by opposite party No.1 vide ticket No.6615383319, herein also, the complaint was closed on 26.09.2020 and response was given by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to the husband of the complainant that it has been observed that: your transaction has been successfully processed to your merchant. For more details kindly contact your merchant. Vide annexure-E the same response was also sent to the complainant by the opposite parties No.1 & 2. It is just and appropriate at this juncture to cite one of the contents of the email annexed as annexure-G dated August 24, 2022 sent by SBI Parour to one Divay Khanna employee of Oxygen Services India Private Limited having email ID Divay.khanna@myoxigen.com. The subject matter of this email was request for providing proof of successful remittance in merchant account. The contents are as follows :-
We refer to the trail mail wherein it has been communicated that the transaction got failed and the refund sent to the customer's Bank account. We were surprised to receive such reply when the actual transaction had happened 2 years back on 21.04.2020 and refunded back in 2022. We request to kindly clarify on the following points:
1. Customer had lodged various complaints back in 2020 and every time the reply received was "The payment is successful. Please Contact Merchant".
2. We have received previous communication from Oxigen services where they have confirmed that the transaction is successful.
4
3. We have received one communication from M/s. Oxigen payment services where they informed that the transaction has been refunded back to customer account on the basis of goodwill of the customer. We would like to raise a point that if it was the customer goodwill, then why the refund initiated after two years of the transaction and when the Consumer Court case is already going on and customer had claimed for financial loss and mental harassment.
4. If the transaction had failed as mentioned in trail mail, why the customer was not refunded back in year 2020.
5. Now, if the Consumer Court imposes fine on the Bank, Who will be accountable/ responsible?. Lastly, the Bank's image will be jeopardized.
8. In response to this, the response from myoxigen services which is intermediary in the present case is referred as under:-
Referring to our discussion over the call, the below-mentioned transaction got failed and reversal against the same was already sent back to SBI for processing on 31st March 2022.
Please check if the reversal of the transaction was done to the customer's bank account or not.
9. The bank manager Sh. Pulkit Gandhi was cross examined by the complainant wherein the Bank Manager has stated that it is wrong to suggest that o 22.04.2022 the said amount was refunded to the complainant. Self stated that the said amount was refunded by the Airtel payment aggregator to the complainant on 02.04.2022. In his affidavit, the said bank manager has mentioned that however the opposite party received a mail on 14-07-2022 from the "Oxygen Services India Private Limited" at 7.31 pm and matter of mail is that "We received success response against below transaction as transaction was 2 years old and operator (Operator means Airtel Company) do not entertain such old cases. For customer goodwill we refunded the transaction to you. The disputed amount was credited in the account of the husband of the complainant on 22-04-2022.
10. The statement of bank manager and email conversation appended with this reply as annexure-G are entirely contradictory to each other. The intermediary Oxygen Services India Private Limited on 31.03.2022 processed the reversal and the amount was sent
5
back to SBI for further processing. The perusal of the record reveals that the amount of Rs.2162/- was debited from the account of husband of the complainant on 21.04.2020 and after two years on 22.04.2022, the amount was credited in the account of husband of complainant. Upon initial complaints, the opposite party No.1 always told the complainant that matter stands resolved and transaction has been successfully processed to complainant's merchant vide annexures B,C,D & E. In fact the amount remained with intermediary Oxygen Services India Private Limited for approximately two years and the complainant was never told about such thing. Had it been told, the complainant could have approached Oxygen Services India Private Limited timely and he could have been saved from the harassment suffered due to incomplete information provided by the opposite party No.1 &2. In the reply through opposite parties No.1 & 2 has mentioned that report of payment aggregator provider is showing status of payment as successful, but no such record is placed by the opposite parties. Annexure-A is dated 25.03.2022 i.e. after 23 months the opposite party got the response from Oxygen Services India Private Limited. Surprisingly the opposite parties No.1&2 initiated the communication with the Oxygen Services India Private Limited after getting the notice from this Commission on 19.02.2022. Non redressal of the grievance by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and incomplete information provided to complainant by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is clearly deficiency in service.
10. Ld. counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 has stated that Oxygen Services India Private Limited is intermediary of Airtel DTH services and is not associated with the opposite parties No.1 & 2, but we observe that it is incumbent upon all the parties to redress the grievance of complainant after receiving complaints of complainant annexures C-2 to C-7. As such, opposite parties No.3 & 4 who had not contested the complaint despite of valid notice and too has not revealed the name of Oxygen Services India Private Limited to the complainant, kept silent on receiving the complaint of complainant, never took any step to redress the grievance of complainant, are also held liable for deficiency in service. The
6
amount though is very small amount, but the harassment which has been suffered by the complainant and her husband is too much. Indeed the complainant suffered financial hardship, mental stress, agony and that too for two complete years moreover the trust of complainant upon the online transaction was lost due to such deficiency in service as discussed above.
11. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties jointly and severally are directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Apart from this, opposite parties are jointly & severally also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant.
12. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(Hemanshu Mishra)
President
(Narayan Thakur) (Arti Sood)
Member Member
7