Judicial Precedents On Digital Payment App Frauds
1. Madras High Court: Paytm Liable for Unauthorized Transactions
Case: Madras High Court held Paytm liable for unauthorized transactions from a customer's account.
Facts: A customer reported unauthorized transactions amounting to approximately ₹3 lakh from their Paytm account. Despite the customer's claims of no fraudulent actions, Paytm failed to resolve the dispute within the stipulated 90 days.
Issue: Whether Paytm is liable for unauthorized transactions and the failure to resolve the dispute within the prescribed time frame.
Ruling: The court held that Paytm was liable for the unauthorized transactions and criticized the platform for not adhering to the 90-day resolution period. The court emphasized the importance of timely dispute resolution and consumer protection in digital transactions. This case underscores the accountability of digital payment platforms in safeguarding user interests. SCC Online
2. Hyderabad District Consumer Commission: Paytm and Domino's Jointly Liable
Case: Uppala Rajeev Babu vs. Paytm and Domino's Pizza
Facts: A consumer purchased a Domino's gift card through Paytm, but faced issues redeeming it. Despite multiple attempts and communications, the problem persisted.
Issue: Whether Paytm and Domino's Pizza are jointly liable for the failure to redeem the gift card.
Ruling: The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission held both Paytm and Domino's Pizza jointly liable for the failure to redeem the gift card. The commission ordered compensation for the consumer, highlighting the responsibility of digital platforms and merchants in ensuring the functionality of their services. Law Trend - Legal News Network
3. Supreme Court: SBI Ordered to Refund Full Amount in Online Scam
Case: Supreme Court orders State Bank of India to refund ₹94,000 lost in an online scam to its customer
Facts: A customer from Assam fell victim to an online scam while attempting to return a Louis Philippe blazer. The fraudulent transactions were processed through Google Pay, a third-party app not recommended by SBI.
Issue: Whether SBI is liable to refund the full amount lost in the online scam.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ordered SBI to refund the full amount lost by the customer, emphasizing the bank's responsibility in ensuring secure transactions and protecting customer interests. The court's decision underscores the accountability of banks in digital payment ecosystems. The Economic Times
4. Consumer Court: Paytm Penalized for Unreasonably Freezing Shopkeeper's Account
Case: Consumer Court slaps ₹12,000 penalty on Paytm for unreasonably freezing shopkeeper's account
Facts: A shopkeeper's Paytm account was frozen without adequate justification, causing business disruptions. Despite the shopkeeper's efforts to resolve the issue, Paytm failed to provide a satisfactory explanation.
Issue: Whether Paytm is liable for unreasonably freezing the shopkeeper's account and causing business losses.
Ruling: The consumer court imposed a ₹12,000 penalty on Paytm for unreasonably freezing the shopkeeper's account. The court emphasized the need for digital platforms to act transparently and fairly, ensuring that their actions do not harm consumers or businesses. Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
5. Karnataka High Court: PhonePe Ordered to Share User Transaction Information
Case: Karnataka High Court rejects PhonePe's plea against information sharing
Facts: Bengaluru cyber police issued a notice under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking user transaction information from PhonePe in an investigation related to losses through cricket betting applications. PhonePe challenged the notice, citing privacy concerns and statutory protections.
Issue: Whether PhonePe is obligated to share user transaction information with law enforcement agencies.
Ruling: The Karnataka High Court dismissed PhonePe's petition, upholding the police's authority to access user transaction information under Section 91 of the CrPC. The court emphasized the balance between consumer privacy rights and the need for effective criminal investigations, especially in the context of modern cyber crimes. The Times of India
Key Takeaways:
Platform Liability: Digital payment platforms are held accountable for unauthorized transactions and must adhere to prescribed resolution timelines.
Joint Responsibility: Merchants and digital platforms can be jointly liable for issues affecting consumers, such as failure to redeem gift cards.
Bank Accountability: Banks are responsible for ensuring secure transactions and protecting customer interests in digital payment ecosystems.
Fair Practices: Digital platforms must act transparently and fairly, ensuring that their actions do not harm consumers or businesses.
Law Enforcement Cooperation: Digital platforms are obligated to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations, balancing privacy concerns with the need for effective justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments