E-Paper
Ludhiana | Tech firm asked to pay ₹2K for charging ₹37 extra as MDR
Ludhiana-based complainant stated that he got a laptop repaired from the opposite party and also got an antivirus software installed in the same laptop for which he paid ₹1,180 as service charges.The tech firm charged ₹670, but the complainant paid the amount under protest through his debit card. The firm charged 2% extra as MDR on debit card
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Secant Technologies to pay a compensation of ₹2,000 to a customer for charging an extra amount of ₹37 as merchant discount rate (MDR) and refund the aforesaid extra charges.
Paramjit Singh of Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, submitted a complaint against Secant Technologies, a unit of Litratim MicroSpecialities Private Ltd, through its managing director Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana (referred to as opposite party).
The complaint
Singh in his complaint, submitted on September 14, 2019, stated that he got a laptop repaired from the opposite party and also got an antivirus software installed in the same laptop for which he paid ₹1,180 as service charges.
The opposite party further charged ₹670, but the complainant paid the amount under protest through his debit card. The firm charged 2% extra as MDR on debit card.
The complainant informed the opposite party about the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India which clearly stated that on account of ₹2,000 or less, no merchant discount rate was chargeable but despite that the charge was levied.
Since the opposite party charged ₹1,887 instead of ₹1,850, the complainant said it amounted to deficiency of service.
Submitting his complaint, the complainant sought a compensation of ₹50,000 for deficiency of service, ₹1 lakh on account of unfair trade practice, ₹10,000 for legal charges and refund of extra ₹37, along with interest @12% per annum.
However, the counsel for the opposite party pleaded that the complaint was false and frivolous and had been filed without any locus standi to extract money from the party.
The opposite party further contended that the complainant claimed to have made the payment of ₹1,887 through his debit card, whereas the payment was made through a credit card, belonging to one Hartaj Singh. Thus, the complainant made a false statement and never made the payment which was actually paid by one Hartaj Singh, the counsel added.
Commission’s verdict
The commission, in its order, observed that the opposite party was concerned with payment and it hardly made a difference if the payment was made by the complainant using else’s debit card. “Even otherwise, the issue in this case is as to whether or not the opposite party was entitled to charge the extra amount of ₹37 on account of MDR. It cannot be said that sum perjury or fraud has been committed by the complainant,” stated the commission.
“The opposite party was not entitled to charge ₹37 as MDR and in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the opposite party is made to refund ₹37 charged from the complainant, along with a composite compensation of ₹2,000,” the order read.
