Money Not Refunded Despite Failed Transaction, Panipat District Commission Holds Paytm And Manyavar Liable For Deficiency In Service

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr. R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Manyavar and Paytm liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the money deducted from the Complainant's account despite showing “transaction failed”. The bench directed Manyavar and Paytm to refund Rs. 9496/- to the Complainants and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complaints along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs. Brief Facts: Mr. Saurabh Gautam (“Complainant No. 1”) purchased goods from Manyavar through a cash memo, amounting to Rs. 9,496/-. The payment was made by Naveet Arora (“Complainant No. 2”), a friend of Complainant No. 1, through Paytm. However, the showroom manager of Manyavar claimed that the transaction failed, prompting Complainant No. 1 to make another payment of Rs. 9,496/- through Paytm, which was confirmed by Manyavar. Despite this, Complainant No. 2 did not receive a refund for the initial payment. The Complainants made several communications with Manyavar and Paytm but didn't receive any satisfactory response from them. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainants approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Manyavar and Paytm. Manyavar contended that it received the payment through BharatPe. It claimed that BharatPe transferred Rs. 13,495/- to their account, covering the Complainant's payment of Rs. 9,496/- and a transaction of Rs. 3,999/- from another consumer. It argued that it didn't receive any extra amount from the Complainant. Paytm asserted that the grievance lay with ICICI bank (Complainant's bank account), which was not impleaded as a party. It emphasized its limited role in UPI transactions, stating that there was no deficiency in service on its part. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission observed that the initial payment made by Complainant No. 2 was neither refunded to his account nor credited to Manyavar. Despite repeated requests from Complainant No. 2, Manyavar and Paytm refused to acknowledge his claim. Therefore, it held Manyavar and Paytm liable for deficiency in services. Consequently, the District Commission directed Manyavar and Paytm to refund Rs. 9496/- to the Complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint until its actual realization. Additionally, Manyavar and Paytm were instructed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainants as compensation and Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses within 45 days.

Money Not Refunded Despite Failed Transaction, Panipat District Commission Holds Paytm And Manyavar Liable For Deficiency In Service

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Money Not Refunded Despite Failed Transaction, Panipat District Commission Holds Paytm And Manyavar Liable For Deficiency In Service

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers