State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs Sri Guru Gobind Singh College on 28 November, 2019
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 148 of 2019 Date of Institution : 22.07.2019 Date of Decision : 28.11.2019 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, H.No.1224, G/F, New HBC, Sector 19, Panchkula (Haryana) - PIN 134113. .......Appellant/Complainant. Versus The Principal, Sri Guru Gobind Singh College, Sector 26, U.T., Chandigarh 160026. Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O), PayU Payments Private Limited, 9th Floor, Bestech Business Tower, Sohna road, Tatvam Villas Dhani, Sector 48, Gurugram (Hr.). The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Baltana, Tribune Colony Road Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, PIN 140603. ...Respondents/Opposite Parties. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Argued by:
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, appellant in person.
Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Sh. Jitendra Mahajan, Senior Assistant of respondent No.3.
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the complainant against order dated 03.07.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum' only), vide which, his Consumer Complaint bearing No.481 of 2018 was dismissed by the Forum.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant paid online admission fee of Rs.42,660/- on 23.07.2018 to opposite party No.1 through payment link provided on the website towards migration from BCA Part I to Part II of his son, for which an additional cost of Rs.535.19 was charged as online transaction fee by opposite party No.3, which according to him, amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1. On the contrary, opposite party No.1 pleaded that it had no role to play as the amount, in question, was charged by the banker; that there were other options/modes to pay through respective apps like PAY U or PAYTM; that difference in both the charges was phenomenal; that the complainant had opted the mode of payment by pressing the option online payment of admission fee through his banker; that the amount was not charged by opposite party No.1 over and above the fee and the transaction charges were levied by opposite party No.3 i.e. banker of complainant.
3. The core question, which falls for consideration in this appeal, is, whether transaction charges from the complainant, while paying online fee by the complainant to opposite party No.1 by using his debit card, could be charged or not.
4. The District Forum, while dismissing the complaint of the complainant, held in Para 9 of its order as under:-
"9. It is also the admitted case, there were other modes of payment of fee through PAYTM etc. but, the complainant had opted for online payment. No rule has been shown that the SBI/OP-3 has charged the amount over and above the rate fixed by the RBI. No such circular or say notification has been shown. Even otherwise at admission stage, the process was not issued against OP-3 as the main relief was prayed for against OPs 1 & 2 only."
5. The Forum further held that opposite party No.1 cannot be held guilty of practicing unfair trade practice or say deficiency in service on its part.
6. The appellant in person argued that the online transaction charges were arbitrarily charged and the same should have been refunded. He also argued that he made the online payment by using his Debit Card and therefore, as per letter/instructions of Reserve Bank of India bearing DPSS.CO.PD No.1633/02.14.003/2017-18 dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure R-4), opposite parties No.1 & 2 were to ensure that merchants on-boarded by them do not pass on MDR charges while accepting payments through debit cards. It was argued that by doing so, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are deficient in rendering service and they also indulged into unfair trade practice by ignoring the aforesaid instructions dated 06.12.2017 of Reserve Bank of India, which came into effect from 01.01.2018.
7. Contesting the aforesaid argument of the appellant/complainant, Counsel for respondent No.1 and Counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the Forum rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant by holding that there were other modes of payment of fee through PAYTM etc. but he opted for online payment.
8. We accept the argument raised by the appellant/ complainant as the aforesaid letter/instructions of Reserve Bank of India bearing DPSS.CO.PD No.1633/02.14.003/2017-18 dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure R-7) comes to his rescue. These instructions were issued for rationalization of Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) for Debit Card Transactions. Vide these instructions, the Reserve Bank of India, while fixing the maximum MDR for debit card transactions, clearly issued a direction at Para 6, which reads thus:-
"6. Banks are also advised to ensure that merchants on-boarded by them do not pass on MDR charges to customer while accepting payments through debit cards."
9. In our opinion, once the Reserve Bank of India made it very clear that no MDR charges are to be passed on to the customer by merchants on-boarded by the Bank(s), while accepting payments through debit cards, the act of opposite parties No.1& 2 in passing such charges on to the appellant/complainant, was in total defiance of above letter/instructions of Reserve Bank of India. Had the appellant/complainant made online payment by using credit card or any other card and not debit card, the matter would have been different and in that eventuality, charging of MDR charges would be said to be justified. But it is not so in the instant case. It is not in dispute that the online payment made by the appellant/ complainant was through debit card. Thus, his case clearly falls under aforesaid letter/instructions of Reserve Bank of India.
10. Not only above, vide Annexure R-2, which is letter dated 17.09.2013, the Principal Chief General Manager of Reserve Bank of India wrote to the Chairman/Chief Executive of all the Scheduled Commercial Banks (Excluding RRBs)/Local Area Banks, expressing his concern on levying fees on debit card transactions by merchants. Paras No.4 & 5 of this letter reads thus:-
"4. Levying fees on debit card transactions by merchants - There are instances where merchant establishments levy fee as a percentage of the transaction value as charges on customers who are making payments for purchase of goods and services through debit cards. Such fee are not justifiable and are not permissible as per the bilateral agreement between the acquiring bank and the merchants and therefore calls for termination of the relationship of the bank with such establishment.
5. Though many banks have appreciated our concerns and have discontinued with the above mentioned practices/products, some of them still seems to persist with them. These practices/products thwart the very principle of fair and transparent pricing of products which beholds customer rights and customer protection, especially, in the more vulnerable retail segment. Such practices thus violate, both in letter and spirit, various provisions of our MC on Interest Rate on Advances and therefore, you are advised to strictly desist from these practices hence forth."
11. In view of above, as Opposite party No.1 had an arrangement with Opposite party No.2 for collection of fee, therefore, both opposite parties No.1 & 2 wrongly and arbitrarily charged an amount of Rs.535.19 from the appellant/complainant while making online payment of Rs.42,660/- by him by using his debit card, which was also in contradiction to the letter/instructions of Reserve Bank of India (Annexure R-2) referred to above. Therefore, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are liable to refund the aforesaid charges of Rs.535.19 to the complainant. To compensate for physical harassment and mental agony suffered by the appellant/complainant, in our opinion, grant of lump-sum amount of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant/complainant would be just and adequate.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.07.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh, dismissing consumer complaint bearing No.481 of 2018, is set aside. Consumer Complaint bearing No.481 of 2018 is partly allowed against respondents No.1 & 2/opposite parties No.1 & 2 and they are jointly and severally, directed as under:-
To refund an amount of Rs.535.19 to the appellant/complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @12% per annum, from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 45 days period, till actual realization.
pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant/complainant as lump-sum compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him due to deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of respondents No.1 & 2/opposite parties No.1 & 2, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @12% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization.
13. However, Consumer Complaint bearing No.481 of 2018 stands dismissed against respondent No.3/opposite party No.3 with no order as to costs.
14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced 28.11.2019.
[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad