Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 726
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Kumkum Rani, President, B.S. Manral, Member
Punjab National Bank Sultanpur Kunhari, District Haridwar through its Branch Manager – Appellant
Versus
Sh. Sachin Kumar – Respondent
SC/5/A/212/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Sh. S.M. Joshi, Advocate
For the Respondents: None
Customer negligence in mobile/UPI transactions bars deficiency in service claim against bank/payment facilitator.
Headnote:Under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, appeal against district commission order allowing consumer complaint for refund of Rs. 1,06,500/- deducted via UPI transactions, plus interest, compensation, and costs. Complainant’s savings account linked to payment app experienced deductions after failed transfer; bank and app held deficient by district forum. State commission found complainant admitted authorizing all mobile transactions, misled by third-party fraud, lacking vigilance. Issues framed: Whether unauthorized deductions constituted service deficiency despite complainant’s role in transactions. Ratio: Customer bears duty of care for mobile security and OTPs; no deficiency where transactions completed with authorization, distinguishing cases of reported unauthorized access. Appeal allowed; district order set aside; complaint dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of failed upi transfer and unauthorized deductions alleged as deficiency. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. complainant admitted authorizing all mobile transactions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. customer vigilance required; negligence bars service deficiency claim. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. appeal allowed; no deficiency found, complaint dismissed. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 20 of 2021, styled as Sh. Sachin Kumar Vs. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant & respondent No. 2 (opposite parties to the consumer complaint) were directed to refund to respondent No. 1 / complainant, an amount of Rs. 1,06,500/- withdrawn from his account on different dates, together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 19.01.2021 till payment, besides to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards counsel fee & litigation expenses.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that respondent No. 1 / complainant is having a Savings Bank Account No. 3137001500026475 with the appellant – bank since 2008 and he has been regularly using the said account since the date of its opening. The aforesaid bank account of the complainant is linked with respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 2 – Google Pay, which facility the complainant had been using since last two years. On 26.11.2020, the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from his mobile No. 8859051218 to the mobile No. 8650210093 of one Sh. Mohit through Google Pay via UPI No. 033115226537. The aforesaid amount was immediately deducted from the complainant’s account. However, on 28.11.2020, Sh. Mohit informed the complainant that the aforesaid amount has not been credited to his account. The complainant made a complaint with the bank, whereupon he was assured that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- would return / credited to his account, but the same was not done. On 28.11.2020, when the complainant made a complaint with the bank regarding non-credit of amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the account of Sh. Mohit, on the same day at 1:46 p.m., the complainant received text messages on his mobile handset regarding two transactions of Rs. 25,000/- each. After receipt of aforesaid two text messages, an amount of Rs. 9,000/-; Rs. 8,500/-; Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- was also deducted from his account against certain e-transactions. The said e-transactions were done through UPI, MobiKwik and Retail CC. This way, the appellant and respondent No. 2 (opposite parties to the consumer complaint) have illegally deducted an amount of Rs. 1,06,500/- from the complainant’s account. The complainant submitted a complaint with the bank, but to no avail and the amount was not refunded to him. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant and respondent No. 2, consumer complaint was filed by respondent No. 1 / complainant before the District Commission.
3. The appellant – bank did not file any written statement before the District Commission and vide order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the District Commission, their opportunity of filing the written statement was closed. Per order dated 23.11.2021, the District Commission closed the opportunity of filing evidence by the bank and the consumer complaint was fixed for arguments.
4. The respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 2 filed written statement before the District Commission and pleaded that on 26.11.2020, the amount was duly credited to the receiver’s account and no complaint was lodged by the complainant regarding the said transaction. It was also submitted that out of t
