ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION -V
NORTHWEST DISTRICT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC - BLOCK C-POCKET C, SHALIMAR BAGH DELHI 110088
CC/1091/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. HIMANSHU MISHRA
CUSTOMER ID AND WALLET ACCOUNT NO. 9160055575
AVAILABLE AT A-1/59, SECTOR 18,
1
ROHINI, DELHI-110085 … COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/s One Mobikwik Systems Ltd. (Through its Managing Director Sh. Bipin Preet Singh) First Floor, Unit 102, Parsvnath Exotica, DLF Phase 5, Sector 53,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122003 ... OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1 Mrs. Upasana Taku
(Whole Time Director, M/s One Mobikwik Systems Ltd.) First Floor, Unit 102, Parsvnath Exotica, DLF Phase 5, Sector 53,
Gurgaon, Haryana - 122003. ….OPPOSITE PARTY NO 2
ORDER
06.11.2025
SH. RAJESH, MEMBER
1) The present Order shall decide the admissibility of the instant complaint, filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).
2) The Complainant, Sh. Himanshu Mishra, holds a Mobikwik Wallet Account No. 9160055575. The crux of the complaint relates to a fraudulent transaction that occurred on 15.09.2023 at about 21:47 hours.
3) The Complainant submits that on the said date and time, he received a call on his mobile number (which is linked to the Mobikwik wallet). The caller fraudulently posed as an official of the
2
Opposite Party and informed the Complainant that his pin/password was being changed and asked for an OTP confirmation.
4) The Complainant claims that, immediately getting alerted, he did not enter the OTP. However, immediately thereafter, an amount of Rs. 59,400/- (Rupees Fifty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Only) was debited from his Mobikwik wallet. The Complainant asserts he was in Bajaj Electronics, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, at the time of the incident, and was trapped by "cyber fraudsters."
5) The record shows that the Complainant took immediate action:
a) The incident was reported to the concerned Police Station at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
b) An FIR bearing No. 558 of 2023 was formally lodged under appropriate sections of the law, and the matter is stated to be under active investigation.
c) The incident was also reported to the Opposite Party via email at Fraudalerts@mobikwik.com, and the OPs acknowledged the report, issuing a complaint reference No. 435568 and Wallet Fraud No. 17952587698.
6) The Complainant further alleges that despite reporting the fraud, the Opposite Parties engaged in
"deficiency in service" and "harassment" by subsequently:
a) Initiating unlawful recovery threats through their recovery agents.
b) Posting the Complainant's name in a "defaulter list" without proper consent or authority, which is alleged to have caused immense mental harassment.
c) Adversely affecting the CIBIL score and reputation of the Complainant, who holds the position of Senior Vice President in an MNC.
7) The complaint also mentions that at one point, an agent of the Opposite Party collected Rs. 8,000/- from the Complainant as "Full and Final Settlement" and issued a receipt, but abusive recovery calls continued thereafter.
8) The Complainant seeks directions against the Opposite Parties to immediately stop the
3
harassment, and to restore his CIBIL score to its original capacity.
9) We have heard Sh. Gurnam Singh, Counsel for the Complainant, and have perused the record carefully, including the original complaint petition and annexed documents.
10) The question of jurisdiction is paramount to the admissibility of any complaint. This Commission must satisfy itself on both Territorial Jurisdiction and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction.
11) Let us first decide whether this commission has Territorial Jurisdiction (Section 34, Consumer Protection Act, 2019) to decide the present complaint.
12) Opposite Parties' Address: A bare perusal of the memo of parties clearly shows that both Opposite Party No. 1 (M/s One Mobikwik Systems Ltd.) and Opposite Party No. 2 (Mrs. Upasana Taku) are officially situated and working for gain at Gurgaon, Haryana. None of the Opposite Parties are shown to have a Branch Office or to habitually and personally carry on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission (Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi).
13) The Complainant's own pleadings indicate that the fraudulent transaction took place while he was physically present in Hyderabad (Bajaj Electronics, Jubilee Hills). Therefore, no part of the primary cause of action (the fraudulent debit) has been pleaded to have arisen within the territorial limits of this Commission.
14) While the Complainant has mentioned his residential address in Rohini, Delhi, he has not filed any primary document (such as a valid Aadhar Card, Voter ID, or Electricity Bill) which prima facie shows that he is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission at the time of filing the complaint, as required under the enabling provisions for territorial jurisdiction. The complaint petition merely contains a self-declared address, which is insufficient to establish jurisdiction against OPs situated outside the territory, especially when the cause of action also arose elsewhere.
15) Now let us consider the Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Complex Fraud and Criminality) as per averments made in the complaint.
16) The very foundation of the complaint rests upon a successful act of "cyber fraud" resulting in the unauthorized debit of Rs. 59,400/- from the Complainant's wallet. The Complainant has unequivocally classified this as a fraudulent transaction by "cyber fraudsters" and, significantly,
4
has taken recourse to the criminal justice system by lodging FIR No. 558 of 2023, which is presently under investigation.
17) The adjudication of this matter necessarily involves determining complex questions of fact and law involving criminal fraud, cybercrime investigation, and the findings of an ongoing police inquiry. The Consumer Commission is not equipped to handle such complex issues suitable for a competent Civil Court or the outcome of the ongoing Criminal Investigation.
18) The subsequent allegations of harassment and CIBIL impact are secondary to the primary criminal act, and the liability of the OPs for those actions cannot be determined without a finding on the validity and responsibility for the initial Rs. 59,400/- debit.
19) The instant complaint fails on the fundamental grounds of both Territorial Jurisdiction (as the OPs are in Gurgaon, the cause of action arose in Hyderabad, and residence is unproven) and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (as the core dispute involves complex questions of criminal fraud).
20) In view of above discussions, observations and for the reasons stated above, this Commission holds that the instant complaint is not maintainable as this Commission lacks both the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the matter.
21) Therefore, the present complaint is hereby DISMISSED at the preliminary/admission stage. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon'ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on https://e-jagriti.gov.in/.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Commission on 06.11.2025.
(SANJAY KUMAR) (NIPUR CHANDNA) (RAJESH)
5
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
..................
RAJESH
PRESIDING MEMBER
6