Kullu District Commission Holds BHIM APP Liable For Failed Transaction, Orders Refund And Compensation

The Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Sh. Purender Vaidya as president and Ms. Pooja Gupta as member, allowed a consumer complaint against BHIM APP. The issue was related to a failed transaction of ₹20,000/- from the complainant's State Bank of India (SBI) account to Punjab National Bank (PNB) through BHIM APP. The commission observed that while the initial transfer failed due to technical issues with PNB's system, a subsequent attempt showed that the amount was deducted from consumer's SBI account but not credited to the PNB account. They concluded that BHIM APP (Opposite party No.1), responsible for the transaction, was liable for not ensuring the completion of the transaction. As a result, the commission held BHIM APP (Opposite Party No.1) liable for deficiency in service. BHIM App was directed to refund ₹20,000/- with 6% interest from the date of complaint, along with compensation of ₹5,000/- for mental distress and ₹3,000/- litigation expenses. Brief Facts Shri Jagan Nath (Complainant) had two savings accounts—one in State Bank of India (SBI) at Solan and the other in Punjab National Bank (PNB) at Sultanpur, Kullu. On 7th October 2018, he attempted to transfer ₹20,000/- from his SBI account to his PNB account using BHIM APP (Opposite party No.1), but the transfer failed due to technical issues with PNB's system. Trying again on 8th October 2018, the transfer failed once again due to insufficient funds in the SBI account. Even though the record showed that ₹20,000/- were transferred through BHIM APP on 8th October 2018, it never reached the PNB account. Since complaining to BHIM APP's office did not help, Nath filed a consumer complaint alleging service deficiency against BHIM APP. He sought a refund along with compensation. The State Bank of India (Opposite Party no.2) was also made a party in the complaint. Arguments by the BHIM APP and SBI BHIM APP contested the complaint stating that there was no deficiency in their service. They highlighted that the technical glitch leading to the transaction failure occurred at the PNB's bank system (Opposite Party no.2), not within their system. They contended that the transaction status initially showed the successful transfer of ₹20,000/-, followed by a reversal of the same amount in the complainant's SBI account. BHIM APP also emphasized that the Punjab National Bank was better placed to explain the transaction details. State Bank of India (SBI) did not dispute the facts presented by the complainant. They stated that they merely followed the complainant's instructions for the transaction. SBI argued that they had not committed any deficiency in service as they had attempted the transaction but were unable to credit the ₹20,000/- to the complainant's PNB account (Opposite Party no.2). They highlighted that the amount was debited from the complainant's SBI account, confirming that the transaction was facilitated through BHIM APP. Observations of the Commission The Commission identified a deficiency in service on the part of BHIM APP. They acknowledged that the transaction, initially unsuccessful due to some technical issues in the PNB bank system, was subsequently portrayed as completed. But in reality, the amount was never credited into the complainant's PNB account. Additionally, the Commission noted the contradiction in the transaction status, where it appeared incomplete due to insufficient funds on one day but was seemingly marked as successful the next day. Consequently, the Commission absolved SBI (Opposite Party No.2), of any liability, observing that they merely followed the complainant's instructions. However, they held BHIM APP, liable for the incomplete transaction, stating that it was their duty to ensure the completion of the transaction as the service provider. Consequently, the commission dismissed the complaint against State Bank of India and directed BHIM APP to refund ₹20,000/- to the complainant along with 6% interest. Additionally, they ordered a compensation of ₹5,000/- for mental harassment, along with ₹3,000/- litigation expenses. Case Title: Shri Jagan Nath vs BHIM APP Counsel for the complainant: Sh. Raj Kumar, Advocate Counsel for the opposite party No.1: Sh. Chuneshwar Thakur, Advocate Counsel for the opposite party No.2: Sh. Shubham Sethi, Advocate Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Kullu District Commission Holds BHIM APP Liable For Failed Transaction, Orders Refund And Compensation

Apoorva Pandita

Tags