• Hey there! Welcome to TFC! View fewer ads on the website just by signing up on TF Community.

UPI Transaction Court Case - PhonePe to Pay Compensation & Refund Amount

Apply For Lifetime Free IDFC First Credit Card
A

Abhishek012

TF Pioneer
UPI Transaction Court Case - PhonePe to Pay Compensation and Refund Amount:

In a recent ruling, the 111 Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission handed down a judgment in favor of two complainants in a case against PhonePe Private Limited (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1), a leading online payment platform, and two banks, Canara Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2) and Karnataka Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3). The case, Consumer Complaint No: 1503/2019, highlights the significance of consumer protection laws in India.

Background

The dispute, dating back to October 11, 2017, arose when the first complainant, N.D. Vinaya Kumar, transferred Rs. 10,000 to his friend, Unnikrishna B (Complainant No. 2), via PhonePe’s platform. However, despite receiving a successful transaction message from PhonePe, the money was not credited to Unnikrishna B’s bank account maintained with Canara Bank.

The complainants’ attempts to resolve the issue with PhonePe and the respective banks proved unsuccessful, leading them to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. Their grievance alleged both a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

The Ruling

In a comprehensive judgment delivered by the commission of Sri. Shivarama. K, PresidentSri and Chandrashekar.S.Noola & Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, Member, the following key points were outlined:
  1. Deficiency of Service: The commission found PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) liable for the transaction issue. As an intermediary facilitating online payments, PhonePe was deemed responsible for ensuring diligence in every transaction on its platform. In the words of Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, the commission member, “We hold that opposite party No. 1 is liable for it and also the act of not refunding the claimed amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the account of either complainants despite many requests raised by both the complainant. It amounts to deficiency of service as enumerated U/s. 2 (g) and unfair trade practice as enumerated U/s as enumerated U/s. 2 (r) of C.P Act, 1986.
  2. Compensation Awarded: The commission ordered PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) to refund the Rs. 10,000 with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the alleged transaction. Additionally, both complainants were awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000 each for the mental agony and financial hardships they endured during the ordeal.
  3. Litigation Costs: The costs of litigation, amounting to Rs. 5,000, were imposed on PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) and Karnataka Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3).
  4. Compliance Deadline: PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) was given 45 days to comply with the order. Failure to do so would result in the awarded amount accruing interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
Case Name: N.D. Vinaya Kumar Vs Phonepe Private Limited

Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 1503/2019

Bench: Sri. Shivarama. K, PresidentSri and Chandrashekar.S.Noola & Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, Member

Order dated: 11.08.2023

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/case-89-nd-vinaya-kumar-vs-phonepe-private-limited-490414.pdf
 
Apply For LTF AU LIT Credit Card
Abhishek012 said:
UPI Transaction Court Case - PhonePe to Pay Compensation and Refund Amount:

In a recent ruling, the 111 Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission handed down a judgment in favor of two complainants in a case against PhonePe Private Limited (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1), a leading online payment platform, and two banks, Canara Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2) and Karnataka Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3). The case, Consumer Complaint No: 1503/2019, highlights the significance of consumer protection laws in India.

Background

The dispute, dating back to October 11, 2017, arose when the first complainant, N.D. Vinaya Kumar, transferred Rs. 10,000 to his friend, Unnikrishna B (Complainant No. 2), via PhonePe’s platform. However, despite receiving a successful transaction message from PhonePe, the money was not credited to Unnikrishna B’s bank account maintained with Canara Bank.

The complainants’ attempts to resolve the issue with PhonePe and the respective banks proved unsuccessful, leading them to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. Their grievance alleged both a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

The Ruling

In a comprehensive judgment delivered by the commission of Sri. Shivarama. K, PresidentSri and Chandrashekar.S.Noola & Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, Member, the following key points were outlined:
  1. Deficiency of Service: The commission found PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) liable for the transaction issue. As an intermediary facilitating online payments, PhonePe was deemed responsible for ensuring diligence in every transaction on its platform. In the words of Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, the commission member, “We hold that opposite party No. 1 is liable for it and also the act of not refunding the claimed amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the account of either complainants despite many requests raised by both the complainant. It amounts to deficiency of service as enumerated U/s. 2 (g) and unfair trade practice as enumerated U/s as enumerated U/s. 2 (r) of C.P Act, 1986.
  2. Compensation Awarded: The commission ordered PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) to refund the Rs. 10,000 with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the alleged transaction. Additionally, both complainants were awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000 each for the mental agony and financial hardships they endured during the ordeal.
  3. Litigation Costs: The costs of litigation, amounting to Rs. 5,000, were imposed on PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) and Karnataka Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3).
  4. Compliance Deadline: PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) was given 45 days to comply with the order. Failure to do so would result in the awarded amount accruing interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
Case Name: N.D. Vinaya Kumar Vs Phonepe Private Limited

Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 1503/2019

Bench: Sri. Shivarama. K, PresidentSri and Chandrashekar.S.Noola & Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, Member

Order dated: 11.08.2023

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/case-89-nd-vinaya-kumar-vs-phonepe-private-limited-490414.pdf
Click to expand...
abhi-maza-ayega-na-bhidu.jpg
 
Once I had given RRB NTPC exam. 400 Rs. was not refunded to me. When I checked status in RRB portal, It was showing refund processed successfully. But it was not reflecting in my bank statement. My friends had got refund in their account but It has been more than 4 months that time but refund was not credited to my bank account. I used to log in into SBI Net Banking, to check refund. I contacted customer care many times and registered complaint, they were used to say wait for a week or some days, it will reflect in your statement soon.

But one day, when I called to SBI customer care, customer representative said exam refund has been credited around one month ago. I checked via Net Banking and it was reflecting in my statement. SMS alert is always ON from the date of a/c opening in my sbi account but I didn't get any email or sms about 400 Rs credit.

I had checked my bank statement many times thoroughly via NET Banking but never found that 400 Rs credit. I think that they did tampering with my statement because that 400 Rs credit transaction was adjusted between two other transactions which I saw many times while checking refund earlier. At that time (around 2016) I was only used to withdraw money from atm. Since UPI was not started that time my passbook had very few transactions that time.

Main point is that, I am not sure but I think Bank Employees may tamper with our bank statements, so it's necessary to monitor our bank balance and statements time to time.
 
Last edited:
Abhishek012 said:
UPI Transaction Court Case - PhonePe to Pay Compensation and Refund Amount:

In a recent ruling, the 111 Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission handed down a judgment in favor of two complainants in a case against PhonePe Private Limited (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1), a leading online payment platform, and two banks, Canara Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2) and Karnataka Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3). The case, Consumer Complaint No: 1503/2019, highlights the significance of consumer protection laws in India.

Background

The dispute, dating back to October 11, 2017, arose when the first complainant, N.D. Vinaya Kumar, transferred Rs. 10,000 to his friend, Unnikrishna B (Complainant No. 2), via PhonePe’s platform. However, despite receiving a successful transaction message from PhonePe, the money was not credited to Unnikrishna B’s bank account maintained with Canara Bank.

The complainants’ attempts to resolve the issue with PhonePe and the respective banks proved unsuccessful, leading them to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. Their grievance alleged both a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

The Ruling

In a comprehensive judgment delivered by the commission of Sri. Shivarama. K, PresidentSri and Chandrashekar.S.Noola & Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, Member, the following key points were outlined:
  1. Deficiency of Service: The commission found PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) liable for the transaction issue. As an intermediary facilitating online payments, PhonePe was deemed responsible for ensuring diligence in every transaction on its platform. In the words of Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, the commission member, “We hold that opposite party No. 1 is liable for it and also the act of not refunding the claimed amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the account of either complainants despite many requests raised by both the complainant. It amounts to deficiency of service as enumerated U/s. 2 (g) and unfair trade practice as enumerated U/s as enumerated U/s. 2 (r) of C.P Act, 1986.
  2. Compensation Awarded: The commission ordered PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) to refund the Rs. 10,000 with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the alleged transaction. Additionally, both complainants were awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000 each for the mental agony and financial hardships they endured during the ordeal.
  3. Litigation Costs: The costs of litigation, amounting to Rs. 5,000, were imposed on PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) and Karnataka Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3).
  4. Compliance Deadline: PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) was given 45 days to comply with the order. Failure to do so would result in the awarded amount accruing interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
Case Name: N.D. Vinaya Kumar Vs Phonepe Private Limited

Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 1503/2019

Bench: Sri. Shivarama. K, PresidentSri and Chandrashekar.S.Noola & Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, Member

Order dated: 11.08.2023

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/case-89-nd-vinaya-kumar-vs-phonepe-private-limited-490414.pdf
Click to expand...
In this case, it should be easy for PhonePe to appeal and the ruling to be overturned. Technically, they were not involved in the money flow and are just a TPAP. They relay the information received from bank via NPCI, and are playing no role in fund movement to any bank account. That's just bank's responsibility, and the onus for compensation should lie ONLY with recipient's bank.
 
Abhishek012 said:
UPI Transaction Court Case - PhonePe to Pay Compensation and Refund Amount:

In a recent ruling, the 111 Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission handed down a judgment in favor of two complainants in a case against PhonePe Private Limited (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1), a leading online payment platform, and two banks, Canara Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2) and Karnataka Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3). The case, Consumer Complaint No: 1503/2019, highlights the significance of consumer protection laws in India.

Background

The dispute, dating back to October 11, 2017, arose when the first complainant, N.D. Vinaya Kumar, transferred Rs. 10,000 to his friend, Unnikrishna B (Complainant No. 2), via PhonePe’s platform. However, despite receiving a successful transaction message from PhonePe, the money was not credited to Unnikrishna B’s bank account maintained with Canara Bank.

The complainants’ attempts to resolve the issue with PhonePe and the respective banks proved unsuccessful, leading them to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. Their grievance alleged both a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

The Ruling

In a comprehensive judgment delivered by the commission of Sri. Shivarama. K, PresidentSri and Chandrashekar.S.Noola & Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, Member, the following key points were outlined:
  1. Deficiency of Service: The commission found PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) liable for the transaction issue. As an intermediary facilitating online payments, PhonePe was deemed responsible for ensuring diligence in every transaction on its platform. In the words of Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, the commission member, “We hold that opposite party No. 1 is liable for it and also the act of not refunding the claimed amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the account of either complainants despite many requests raised by both the complainant. It amounts to deficiency of service as enumerated U/s. 2 (g) and unfair trade practice as enumerated U/s as enumerated U/s. 2 (r) of C.P Act, 1986.
  2. Compensation Awarded: The commission ordered PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) to refund the Rs. 10,000 with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the alleged transaction. Additionally, both complainants were awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000 each for the mental agony and financial hardships they endured during the ordeal.
  3. Litigation Costs: The costs of litigation, amounting to Rs. 5,000, were imposed on PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) and Karnataka Bank (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 3).
  4. Compliance Deadline: PhonePe (OPPOSITE PARTY No. 1) was given 45 days to comply with the order. Failure to do so would result in the awarded amount accruing interest at a rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
Case Name: N.D. Vinaya Kumar Vs Phonepe Private Limited

Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 1503/2019

Bench: Sri. Shivarama. K, PresidentSri and Chandrashekar.S.Noola & Smt. Rekha Sayannavar, Member

Order dated: 11.08.2023

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/case-89-nd-vinaya-kumar-vs-phonepe-private-limited-490414.pdf
Click to expand...
Vo bhai

Mey ne 100₹ payment Kiya rupay upi cc se, vo payzapp app se.

Vo beneficiary ko nhi mila phir Merako bhi refund nhi hua aur transaction tho statement mey bill hogaya.

Kab ayega, refund? Merako kuch compensation bhi milega kya, Hdfc bank se ?
 
provost said:
In this case, it should be easy for PhonePe to appeal and the ruling to be overturned. Technically, they were not involved in the money flow and are just a TPAP. They relay the information received from bank via NPCI, and are playing no role in fund movement to any bank account. That's just bank's responsibility, and the onus for compensation should lie ONLY with recipient's bank.
Click to expand...
No, RBI also allowed 3rd party UPI apps, apply for chargeback/transaction dispute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Consumer Court Fines BHIM App For Failed UPI Transaction, Orders Refund
Replies
8
Views
848
Sahilhenzy
Sahilhenzy
Vineet Kumar
Court Directs ICICI Bank to Credit Reward Points for his Amazon Purchase and to pay Rs. 77K as Compensation.
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
5K
creditcardkakida
C
Back
Top