Abhishek012
TF Pioneer
Consumer Court Fines BHIM App For Failed UPI Transaction, Orders Refund:
The complainant, Shri Jagan Nath, had two savings bank accounts, one with State Bank of India (SBI) in Solan and another with Punjab National Bank (PNB) in Sultanpur, Kullu. The dispute arose when a ₹20,000 transaction from the SBI account to the PNB account through BHIM APP encountered difficulties.
The Commission, presided over by President Sh.Purender Vaidya and Ms. Pooja Gupta, Member, heard the arguments from both parties. The complaint had initially been decided ex-parte but was revisited upon appeal. The defense put forth by BHIM APP included claims of a technical glitch in the PNB system and the subsequent reversal of funds.
In delivering the judgment, President Sh.Purender Vaidya stated, “After due consideration, we find substance in the plea raised by the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. So, the complainant is only entitled to the relief against the opposite party No.1.”
The Commission ruled that the deficiency in service lay with BHIM APP (opposite party No.1), absolving State Bank of India (opposite party No.2) of any fault. The judgment directed BHIM APP to pay ₹20,000 to the complainant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint. Additionally, compensation of ₹5,000 for mental tension and harassment, along with litigation expenses of ₹3,000, were awarded.
President Sh.Purender Vaidya emphasized, “Since the transaction has failed and the amount of ₹20,000/- has been debited from the saving bank account of the complainant maintained in SBI, Solan and he did not receive back the said amount and at the same time, said amount was not received in the transferee bank account, therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 stands proved.”
Case Name: Shri Jagan Nath Vs State Bank of India
Case No.:Complaint No.: 13/2019
Bench: Sh.Purender Vaidya, President. Ms. Pooja Gupta, Member.
Order dated: 20.10.2023
The judgment directed BHIM APP to pay ₹20,000 to the complainant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint. Additionally, compensation of ₹5,000 for mental tension and harassment, along with litigation expenses of ₹3,000, were awarded.
In a recent ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, a consumer complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been resolved. The complaint was filed by Shri Jagan Nath against BHIM APP (NPCI-1001A) and State Bank of India, Solan Branch, seeking redress for a failed transaction and alleging deficiency in service.The complainant, Shri Jagan Nath, had two savings bank accounts, one with State Bank of India (SBI) in Solan and another with Punjab National Bank (PNB) in Sultanpur, Kullu. The dispute arose when a ₹20,000 transaction from the SBI account to the PNB account through BHIM APP encountered difficulties.
The Commission, presided over by President Sh.Purender Vaidya and Ms. Pooja Gupta, Member, heard the arguments from both parties. The complaint had initially been decided ex-parte but was revisited upon appeal. The defense put forth by BHIM APP included claims of a technical glitch in the PNB system and the subsequent reversal of funds.
In delivering the judgment, President Sh.Purender Vaidya stated, “After due consideration, we find substance in the plea raised by the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. So, the complainant is only entitled to the relief against the opposite party No.1.”
The Commission ruled that the deficiency in service lay with BHIM APP (opposite party No.1), absolving State Bank of India (opposite party No.2) of any fault. The judgment directed BHIM APP to pay ₹20,000 to the complainant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint. Additionally, compensation of ₹5,000 for mental tension and harassment, along with litigation expenses of ₹3,000, were awarded.
President Sh.Purender Vaidya emphasized, “Since the transaction has failed and the amount of ₹20,000/- has been debited from the saving bank account of the complainant maintained in SBI, Solan and he did not receive back the said amount and at the same time, said amount was not received in the transferee bank account, therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 stands proved.”
Case Name: Shri Jagan Nath Vs State Bank of India
Case No.:Complaint No.: 13/2019
Bench: Sh.Purender Vaidya, President. Ms. Pooja Gupta, Member.
Order dated: 20.10.2023
