A STUDY

ON

“A STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ON GOOGLE PAY AND

PHONE PAY
With reference to

RAJANNA SIRICILLA
Submitted to

SATAVAHANA UNIVERSITY KARIMNAGAR

In Partial Fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
BACHELOR OF COMMERCE

Submited
By
V. ISHWARYA(20077104402024)
M. AKSHITHA(20077104402017)
A. PRATHYUSHA(20077104402002)
G. SHAILAJA(20077104401010)
Under the guidance of
Mrs. T. VIDYA
Degree Lecturer

Department Of Commerce
TELANGANA TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL DEGREE COLLEGE
FOR WOMEN
THANGALLAPALLY, RAJANNA SIRICILLA
(Affiliated to SATAVAHANA UNIVERSITY
(2020-2023)
 DECLARATION

I hereby, declare that this project entitled “ A STUDY ON CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ON GOOGLE
PAY AND PHONE PAY IN RAJANNA SIRICILLA” have completed successfully towards the partial
fulfillment for the award of the degree “BACHULAR OF COMMERCE” from “TELANGANA
TRIBAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL DEGREE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, RAJANNA
SIRICILLA .This is the bonafide work undertaken by me which is not submitted to any other university or
institution for the award of any degree / diploma.

DATE :
PLACE: RAJANNA SIRICILLA

. V. ISHWARYA(20077104402024)
M AKSHITHA(20077104402017)
[Link](20077104402002)
G. SHAILAJA(20077104401010)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The satisfaction that accomplishes the successful completion of any task would be incomplete without
the mention of the people who make it possible and whose constant guidance and encouragement crown all the
efforts with success.
It is my privilege and pleasure to express my profound sense of respect, gratitude and indebtedness to my
guide T. VIDYA, Department of Commerce for her constant guidance, inspiration, and constant
encouragement throughout his this project work .
We wish to express my deep gratitude to [Link] RANI, HOD, Department of Commerce,
TELANGANA TRIBAL WELFARE DEGREE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, RAJANNA SIRICILLA for her
cooperation and encouragement, in addition to providing necessary facilities throughout the project work.
we sincerely extend my thanks to [Link], PRINCIPAL, TELANGANA TRIBAL WELFARE
RESIDENTIAL DEGREE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,RAJANNA SIRICILLA.
We would like to thank all the staff and all my friends for their good wishes, their helping hand and
constructive criticism, wish led the successful completion of this project.

Finally, I thank all those who directly and indirectly helped me in this regard; we apologize for not listing
everyone here.

V. ISHWARYA(20077104402024)
M AKSHITHA(20077104402017)
[Link](20077104402002)
G. SHAILAJA(20077104401010)
 A STUDY ON CONSUMER SATISFACTION ON PHONEPAY AND GOOGLEPAY:
WITH REFRENCE TO RAJANNA SIRICILLA

INTRODUCTION

Google Pay is a digital wallet platform and online payment system developed by Google to
power-in-appand tap-to-pay purchases on mobile devices, enabling users to make payments with
Android phones, tablets or watches. It took over the branding of google chromes autofill feature.
Google pay adopts the features of both android pay and google wallet through its instore, peer-to-
peer and online payment services.

Google pay uses Near Field Communication (NFC)to transmit card information facilitating
funds transfer to the retailer. It replaces the credit or debit card chip and pin or magnetic stripe
transaction at point-of- sale terminals by allowing the user to upload these in the Google Pay
wallet. It is similar to contactless payments already used in many countries, with the addition of
two-factor authentication. The service letsand android devices wirelessly communicate with point
of sale systems using a near field communication (NFC) antenna, host-based card emulation
(HCE), and android’s security.

Google Pay takes advantage of physical authentications such as fingerprint ID where available.
On deviceswithout finger print ID, Google pay is activated with a passcode. When the user makes
a payment to a merchant, Google Pay does not send the credit or debit number with the payment.
Instead it generates a virtual account number representing the users account information. This
service keeps customer payment information private, sending a one-time security code instead of
the card or user details.

PhonePe is an Indian e-commerce payment system and digital wallet company headquartered in
Bangalore, India. It was founded in December 2015, by Sameer Nigam, Rahul Chari and Burz in
Engineer. PhonePe app went live in August 2016 and was the first payment app built on Unified
Payments Interface(UPI).

The PhonePe app is available in over 11 Indian languages. Using PhonePe, users can send and
receive money, recharge mobile, data cards, make utility payments, buy gold and shop online
and offline. In addition PhonePe also allows users to book Ola ride, pay for Redbus tickets,
order food on freshmenu, eat, fit and avail Goibibo Flight and Hotel services through
microapps on its platform.
1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To understand the concept of Google, Pay and PhonePe.

2. To analyze the satisfaction of customers in the usage of Google Pay and PhonePe.

3. To determine the various facilities provided by Google pay and PhonePe.

4. To study the effectiveness of the promotional activities taken by Google Pay and PhonePe.

5. To study the difficulties faced by the users by using payment applications.

1.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

1. The time for the study was limited.

2. Could not cover different categories of people like (people with different financial status etc).

3. Sample method is being used for data collection and it is restricted for few people.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study is to determine the satisfaction of customers in using Google Pay and
PhonePe. As this area e-payment system is widely used. The study is conducted on sampling
method of survey.

1.4 METHODOLOGY

This study is exploratory in nature. Both primary and secondary data have been used for the
study. Primary data was collected with the pre-designed questionnaire to the consumers in
Thiruvalla region. 60 consumers were selected conveniently as samples. Study on the basis
of primary data helps to understand the customer satisfaction on Google pay and Phonepe
and the factors that influence their adoption. The method adopted for the study is
convenience sampling. The secondarydata has been collected from the Internet.

1.5.1 TOOLS FOR PRESENTATION

Bar diagram and pie diagrams are used for the purpose of presentation of data.

1.5.2 TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS

For analyzing the data, percentage and composite indices are used.
1.5 CHAPTERISATION

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Review of literature and theoretical

framework

Chapter 3: Data analysis and interpretation

Chapter 4: Findings, conclusions and suggestion

 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1.1. Doan (2014) he conducted a study to understand consumer adoption on mobile wallets in
Finlandarea. This research was designed in a quantitative method using questionnaire which was
sent to potential respondents in Finland. The study measures the market condition of mobile
wallets users. The study findings reveal that the usage of mobile wallet is only in the initial stage
and respondents are showing positive attitudes towards usage of mobile wallets. Research
concluded that the trust factor reveal the positive or negative impact on adoption of user,
depending on the user satisfaction and user’ssituation

2.1.2 Govender & Sihlali (2014) they explored the factors determine the adoption of mobile
banking (m- banking) services among students who are more technically knowledgeable. The
questionnaire is prepared based on the qualitative approach. Based on the extension of the
Technology Acceptance Model, the theoretical framework is developed to investigate the factors
that determine student’s acceptance of mobile banking. The constructs of TAM for mobile
adoption such as Perceived Ease of Use,Perceived usefulness, Perceived Value, Trust Intention to
Use, and Usage Behavior were used. The statistical tool multiple regression analysis was used to
examine the influence of independent variables on the dependent variable of intention to use m-
banking. The independent variables trust, perceived value, perceived ease of use and social
influence may account for 42percent on the influence of dependent variable.

2.1.3. Cabanillas [Link]., (2015) they have developed a model to examine user’s intention to use
mobile payment based on TAM and MPTAM (Mobile Payments Technology Acceptance Model).
The study was investigated the moderator effect of the user’s age between the subjective rules
and the facility of use. The survey has been conducted among the 2012 national panel of internet
user (physical & virtual). The analysis of data shows that an internet user’s behavior is influenced
by their intention to use new tools. The study findings show that most of the younger mobile
payment users are satisfied and accepted the mobile technology tools when compared to older
mobile users. This study has indicated that older consumers are the stronger relationship between
facility to use and subjective rules. So the mobile technology provider should give more attention
to older consumers to create knowledge about usable ofnew tools.

2.1.4 Meuthia (2015) the study has been investigated that empirically the experiences of users’
satisfaction on e-money adoption in Indonesia. In this study the trust was considered as an
important factor for e-money adopt, and at the time of promotes the system quality and
participation. The data was collected from 117 e-money respondents in Indonesia. The result
shows that users’ satisfaction is determined based on system quality and participation of users.
have high level followed by the others stimulants variables. The study concluded that trust and distrust
were strongly influenced the level of users’ satisfaction on e-money adoption in Indonesia.

2.1.5 Liu & Tai (2016) they have conducted a study in Vietnam to analyze the factors influencing the
consumer’s intention to use mobile payment services. The variables considered for the study
todetermine consumer’s intention to use of mobile payment services are mobility, mobile
payment knowledge, convenience, compatibility, ease of use, usefulness, risk, trust, and safety.
The two variablesnamely perceived ease to use and perceived usefulness was extracted from the
TAM model which was deemed as a suitable model to study consumers’ response and behaviors
when a new product is introduced. The data has been collected from 604 respondents. The result
shows that among the four
external variables compatibility has a strong influence on ease of use and perceived usefulness is
found to be a positive impact on the intention to use M-payment. The study highlighted that trust
and safety have no direct impact on usefulness but it has a direct impact on the intention to use
mobile payment. The study concluded that in Vietnam young people have greater intention to use
mobile payment services when compared to older people and most of the consumers are not giving
much importance to risk.

2.1.6 Singh & Gupta (2016) They have conducted a study to identify various factors influence on
the adoption of mobile wallet payment among customers They considered the various variables
for the study are Convenience, Trust, Security, and Adaptability which have an impact on the
satisfaction of mobile wallet usage. The study was conducted in the Kurali city, District of Punjab.
Pearson's Correlation Analysis was to investigate the relationship between the different basic
variables of the study. The study findings show that mobile wallets are considered as the futures
of cash.

2.1.7 Ahuja & Joshi (2018) have studied about the customer perception concerning Mobile
wallets. In this study they examined that the factors exploration technique is used to classify the
factors which influence customer opinion towards Mobile wallets. The study has been conducted
about the different types of mobile wallets in India. The data is collected from both secondary data
and primary data. The survey was conducted among 139 mobile respondents in the
telecommunication industry.

2.1.8 Ahuja & Joshi (2018) have studied about the customer perception concerning Mobile
wallets. In this study they examined that the factors exploration technique is used to classify the
factors which influence customer opinion towards Mobile wallets. The study has been conducted
about the different types of mobile wallets in India. The data is collected from both secondary data
and primary data. The survey was conducted among 139 mobile respondents in the
telecommunication industry.

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Many of the research studies investigate that trust influences the users’ intention of mobile wallets
technologies usage. But not much research has been done to investigate trust as backgrounds of
user’s satisfaction on mobile wallet’s adoption. Some researchers have explored that trust in
technology as the main variable in the perspective of mobile payment and internet banking, some
research has considered trust as an antecedent to customer satisfaction – Cabanillas et al. (2015).
This study has directly impactedon trust intention to use mobile wallets.

Trust is the important factor which affects the growth of the digital payment system in the rural
areas which is mainly due to a lack of awareness of consumer about security information. Dr.
Saraswat S & Dr. Mehta M (2017) the study was conducted about the mobile phone companies
which provide new technologies and many other benefits like surety, trust, privacy etc., Therefore
this study focused on cashless transactions and the problems faced by users, how they overcome
the issues, how they have accepted and accessed mobile payment services. the study suggested
that government can also make effects in speeding up the procedures by developing an
expectation level which can build the trust among the consumer. Kumar [Link]., (2018) the study
proposed that trust affects the users’ Satisfaction. This research is based on integrative research
model. The consequence of this study helped to prove that trust significantly influenced user’s
satisfaction. This study has been reviewed the relevant literature and discussions done by the
national and international researchers.

The study has been conducted that users’ satisfaction affecting the mobile wallets actual usage level.
This
research has proved the usage of mobile wallets based on three levels likes consumer perception,
preference and satisfaction. The study analyzed the factors in influencing the consumer’s
perception towards mobile wallet technology. The study has included few transactions such as
bill payment, fundtransfer, online shopping, checking account information and its relationship
consumers’ satisfaction.
Hakim & Maamari (2017) this study has been measured that consumers’ perceived service
quality on the internet banking user’s satisfaction. This study suggested that a model to analyze
the online banking service quality and banks users satisfaction. The result shows that e-payment
service quality is importantfor service industries act as a driver of user satisfaction.

The glance at the top six trending mobile wallets,

1 Paytm Paytm is one of the most popular mobile wallets in India that offers users an online
payment platform for secure transactions. Paytm is a user-friendly application and easy to use.
Paytm, which is now a payments bank too, has over the last 4-5 years expanded into ecommerce,
ticketing, and distribution of financial products. As a payments bank, its focus is also on building
a banking customer base and to sell other financial products. Paytm is available on both platforms,
Android and iOS.

2 MobiKwik Mobikwik wallet is an online payment wallet system where a person after
logging in, can add money via his debit or credit card. After adding the money he or she can make
transactions on mobile, DTH, pay electricity bills and much more. You can undertake all these
transactions without any hard cash. MobiKwik is available to iOS, Android, and Windows Phone
users.

3 JioMoney JioMoney wallet has a simple interface and all the elements that matter are
visible at once to users. For instance, wallet balance, the option to recharge, send/request money,
and pay at a shop are present on the main page itself. It is available in Google Play Store and
Apple App Store.
4. Oxigen Oxigen has a lively looking interface with a banner on special schemes running on top,
followed by the options that are available. You can send or ask for money, pay bills and get
recharges. Users feel secure with Oxigen while doing transaction because every time a sixdigit
one-time password (OTP) is sent to the registered mobile number. According to company website
it has a retail footprint of 1,00,000 outlets and has processed over 2 billion transactions till date
with a current transaction volume rate of 720 million transactions per annum. It has a large
customer base of over 150 million. The Oxigen wallet app is available only to Android users.

5. State Bank Buddy The mobile wallet app can be used to send money to new and registered
customers, book movies, flights and hotels, as well as for shopping. It also has features like
reminders to settle dues, recharge and pay bills instantly. This wallet app is available in 13
languages and allows users to set reminders for money transfers and clearing dues. The SBI
Buddy app is available in Google Play Store and Apple App Store. International Journal of
Management, Technology And Engineering Volume 8, Issue XII, DECEMBER/2018 ISSN NO :
2249-7455 Page No:1733

6. Google Pay Google Pay (G pay) is a digital wallet platform and online payment system
developed by Google to power in-app and tap-to-pay purchases on mobile devices, enabling users
to make payments with Android phones, tablets or watches. Google Pay adopts the features of
both Android Pay and Google Wallet through its in-store, peer-to-peer, and online payments
services. Google Pay takes advantage of physical authentications such as fingerprint ID where
available. On devices without fingerprint ID, Google Pay is activated with a pass code. The
simple way to send or receive money with anyone, Shop, recharge, and more, Rewards that are
endlessly rewarding, Pay nearby, more than 50 banks listed under that google pay wallet, money
is protected.

Presently 200-250 million of people are using a mobile wallet which is expected to grow to about
500 million users in further. Most of the mobile wallets are offering cashback offer and discounts
for an online payment transaction to motivate the customer to do online payment.
 CHAPTER 3

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The source of data collected is from the questionnaires distributed to people in Thiruvalla region.
Responses from 60 were collected.
3.1 AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE 3.1

Age category that use Online Payment

AGE NO. OF
GRO
UP RESPONDENTS
PERCENTAGE

18-25 47 78.3

26-35 10 16.7

36-45 Nil Nil

Above 3 5
46

Total 60 100

Source: Primary data

 Figure 3.1

Age category that use Online Payment

Source: Table 3.1

INTERPRETATION: Respondents in the age category of 18-35, account of 78.3% of the

response, which indicates that the younger generation has more active participation in this
project. This implies that online payments are of much use among the younger generation
as compared to therest.
 Table 3.2

Gender Respondents Percentag

e
Male 28 46.7

Female 32 53.3

Transgende nil Nil

r
Total 60 100
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.2

Statistics of Online Payment on the basis of Gender

Source: Table 3
INTERPRETATION:

A majority of 53.3% of respondents are women who use Google pay and PhonePe and a
majority of 46.7% of the respondents are male. This shows that women use online payment
more.

Table 3.3

Online Payment usage of respondents on the basis of occupation

Occupation No of Percentag
Responden e
ts

Student 46 76.7

Government

Employee
nil Nil

Private Employee 6 10

Others 8 13.3

Total 60 100

Source: Primary data

Figure 3.3
Statistics of Online Payment on the basis

ofOccupation

Source: Table 3.3

INTERPRETATION:

A majority of 76.7% of respondents are students who use Google Pay and Phonepe.
10% of therespondents are private employees who use Google Pay and Phonepe.

Table 3.4
Range of bankingservices and payment options

Particular No of Respondents Percentag

s e
Yes 54 90
No 2 3.3
Maybe 4 6.7
Total 60 100
Source: Primary data
Figure 3.4

Statistics of respondents using Online Payment

Source: Table 3.4

INTERPRETATION:

A majority of 90% of the respondents says Google Pay or Phone pe offer wider range of banking
services and payment options and only 3.3% of the respondents doesn’t support this statement.
 Table 3.5

Statistics of respondents not using online payment

Particulars Respondents Percentage

Lack of technical
knowledge
nil Nil
Insecure 1 7.1

Chance of Fraud 4 28.6

Lack of trust 4 28.6

Others 5 35.7

Total 14 100

Source: Primary data

Figure 3.5

Statistics of respondents not using online payment

 INTERPRETATION:

Respondents not using online payment in this project are of the opinion that online
payments are not safe due to reasons such that of fraudulent activities, insecurity, lack of
trust, technical issuesetc.

Table 3.6

Respondents whose phones support the app

Particulars Respondents Percentag

e
Yes 58 96.7

No 2 3.3

Total 60 100

Source: Primary data

Figure 3.6

Respondents whose phone support the app

Source: Table 3.6

INTERPRETATION:

A majority of 96.7% of respondent’s phones support google pay or phone pay and only
3.3% of therespondent’s phone doesn’t support the same.

Table 3.7

More preferred online payment app

Payment No. of Percentag

app Respondents e
Phone pe 5 8.3

Google Pay 55 91.7

Tota 60 100
l
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.7
Most preferred online payment app
Source: Table 3.7

INTERPRETATION:

Most of 91.7% of the respondents prefer to use Google Pay than Phone Pe and only 8.3% of the
respondents prefer Phone Pe. This indicates that Google Pay is the most widely known and used
app.

Table3.8

Respondents usage of online payment app

Usage Respondent Percentag

s e
Below 1 year 28 46.7
1 - 2 years 21 35
Above 2 years 11 18.3
Total 60 100
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.8

Respondents usage of online payment app

 Source: Table 3.8

INTERPRETATION:

46.7% of people have been using the payment app below one year and 35% for one to two
years and18.3% more than two years.

Table: 3.9

Satisfaction of respondents toward Google Pay

Highly Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly

satisfied dissatisfied

Frequency % Frequen % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

cy
Convenient 26 43 27 45 6 10 1 1.6 0 0

User Friendly 24 40 26 43 8 13 2 3 0 0

Speed 18 30 25 42 12 20 5 8 0 0

Security 21 35 26 43 11 18 2 3 0 0

Communication 34 57 19 32 5 8 1 1.6 1 1.6

Language
Source: Primary data
Figure: 3.9

Satisfaction of respondents towards Google Pay

Source: Table 3.9

INTERPRETATION:

A majority of 45% of the respondents has stated satisfied in terms of its convenience. 43% of
the respondents has stated satisfied in term of user friendliness. 42% of the respondents has
stated satisfied in terms of its speed. 43% of the respondents has stated satisfied in terms of its
security and 57% of the respondents has stated highly satisfied in terms of its communication
language. This indicates that the respondents are satisfied with the service provided by
Google Pay.
Table: 3.10

Satisfaction of respondents toward Phone Pe

Highly Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly

dissatisfie
satisfie
d
d
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Convenient 11 18 26 43 19 32 3 5 1 2

User Friendly 10 17 28 47 19 32 2 3 1 2

Speed 14 23 23 38 19 32 3 5 1 2

Security 10 17 25 42 20 33 3 5 2 3

Communication 18 30 23 38 16 27 2 3 1 2

Language
Source: Primary data

Figure: 3.10

Satisfaction of respondents towards Phone Pe

 Source: Table 3.10

INTERPRETATION:

A majority of 43% of the respondents has stated satisfied in terms of its convenience. 47% of
the respondents has stated satisfied in term of user friendliness. 38% of the respondents has
stated satisfied in terms of its speed. 42% of the respondents has stated satisfied in terms of its
security and 38% of the respondents has stated highly satisfied in terms of its communication
language. This indicates that the respondents are satisfied with the service provided by Phone
Pe.

Table 3.11

Usage of Online Payment by respondents

No of
respondents
Particulars Percentage

Daily 11 18.3

Weekly 20 33.3

Monthly 10 16.7

Occasionally 19 31.7

Total 60 100

Source: Primary data

Figure 3.11
Usage of Online Payment by respondents
 Source: Table 3.11

INTERPRETATION
Most of 33.3% of the respondents preferred to use Google Pay or Phone pe weekly for their
transactions whichshows the increasing popularity of the applications.

Table 3.12

Respondents preferred app for transferring money among peers

No of
Particulars Respondents Percentage

Google Pay 55 91.7

Phonepe 5 8.3

Total 60 100

Source: Primary data

Figure 3.12
Respondents preferred app for transferring money among peers
Source: Table 3.12

INTERPRETATION

A majority of 91.7% of the respondents use Google Pay than Phone Pe for transferring money
among thepeers and only 8.3% of the respondents use Phone Pe.

Table 3.13

Online payment app that provide more payment options

Payment Respondents Percentage

app
Phone Pe 9 15

Google Pay 51 85

Total 60 100
Source: Primary data
Figure 3.13

Online payment app that provide more payment option

 Source: Table 3.13

INTERPRETATION

Google Pay provides more (85%) payment options when compared to Phone Pe (15%).

Table 3.14

Immediate responds to customer queries

Payment app Respondent Percentage

Phone Pe 6 10

Google Pay 54 90

Total 60 100
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.14

Immediate responds to customer queries

 Source: Table 3.14

INTERPRETATION:

Customer queries and problems are given fast responds by Google Pay than Phone Pe. This
indicates that Google Pay is readily available to meet the needs of the customers and are
customer friendly.

Table 3.15

Cost and Time effective payment app

Payment Respondents Percentage

app
Phone Pe 13 21.7

Google Pay 47 78.3

Total 60 100
Source: Primary data
Figure 3.15

Cost and Time effective payment app

 Source: Table 3.15

INTERPRETATION:

Majority of 78.3% of the respondents find Google Pay more cost effective as well as time
effectivethan Phone pe which is only 21.7%.

Table 3.16

App which does not need much legal formalities

Payment app Respondents Percentage

Phone Pe 10 16.7

Google Pay 50 83.3

Total 60 100
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.16

App which does not need much legal formalities

 Source: Table 3.16
Table 3.17

Promotional offers provided by Google Pay and Phone Pe

Google Phone Pe
Pay
Frequency % Frequency %

Rewards 51 85 9 15

Offer 45 75 15 25

Cash back 45 75 15 25
Source: Primary data
Figure 3.17

Promotional offers provided by Google Pay and Phone Pe

Source table 3.17

PRETATION:

About 85% of the respondents has stated that Google Pay offers more rewards than that of PhonePe (9%).
45% of the respondents agree that Google Pay has more offers than that of Phone Pe (15%). 45% of the
respondents agree that Google Pay has more cash back than that of Phone Pe(15%).

Table 3.18

Cash loss of respondents

Payment Respondents Percentage

app
Phone Pe Nil Nil

Google Pay 10 16.7

None 50 83.3

Total 60 100
Source: Primary data
Figure 3.18
Cash loss of Respondents

Payment Respondents Percentage

app
Phone Pe Nil Nil

Google Pay 10 16.7

None 50 83.3

Total 60 100
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.18

38
 Cash loss of Respondents
Source: Table 3.18INTERPRETATION:

Majority of the respondents (83.3%) have not faced any problem of cash loss. But 16.7% ofrespondents
lost cash through Google pay.

Table 3.19

Security of Online Banking Services

Particulars Respondents Percentage

YES 35 58.3

NO 4 6.7

MAYBE 21 35

Tota 60 100
l
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.19
Security of Online Banking Service

39
 Source: Table 3.19

INTERPRETATION:

About 58.3% of respondents trust the security of Online Banking Services and only a small
fraction of6.7% feel that its not secure. But 35% of respondents are neutral on security services
render

Table 3.20
Quality of Google
Pay

Particulars Respondents Percentage

Excellent 35 58.3

Average 25 41.7

Poor Nil nil

Total 60 100
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.20 Quality of Google Pay

40
Source: Table 3.20

INTERPRETATION:

A majority of 58.3% of respondents find the quality of Google Pay as excellent and no number
ofrespondents find the quality poor.

Table 3.21
Quality of Phone
Pe
particulars Respondents Percentage
Excellent 35 31.4
Average 20 62.7
Poor 05 6.9
Total 60 100

41
Source: Table 3.21

INTERPRETATION:

A majority of 31.4% of respondents find the quality of Phone Pe as excellent and 5.9% of
respondents find the quality poor.

Table 3.22
Most preferred app

Google Pay Phone Pe

Frequency % Frequency %

Bill Payment 53 88 7 12

Mobile 48 80 12 20

Recharge

Fund Transfer 56 93 4 7

Ticket Booking 49 82 11 18

Food Order 47 78 13 22

Application 53 88 7 12

Fees

Tax Pay 52 87 8 13

Others 50 83 10 17

Source: Primary data

42
Figure
3.22
Most preferred app

Source: Table 3.22

INTERPRETATION:A majority of 88% of the respondents has preferred to use Google

Pay for bill payment, 80% for mobile recharge, 93% for fund transfer, 82% for ticket
booking, 78% for food ordering, 88% for application fees, 87% for tax payment and 83%
for others. This indicates that Google Pay is morepreferred more.

Table 3.23

Google Pay

Services

Particulars Respondens Percentage

Restaurants 23 38.3

Stores 14 23.3

Others 23 38.3

Total 60 100

43
Source: Primary data

Figure 3.23

Google pay

Services

Source: Table 3.23

INTERPRETATION:
Google pay is used for both restaurants and other services (38.3%) more than stores (23.3%).

44
 Table 3.24
Phone Pe Services

Particulars Respondents Percentage

Restaurants 12 25.5

Stores 13 27.7

Others 22 46.8

Total 60 100

Source: Table 3.24

Source: Table 3.24

45
 Source: Table 3.24

INTERPRETATION:

Phone Pe is used for other services (46.8%) more than restaurant (25.5%) and stores

(27.7%).This indicates that Google pay is acceptable foe rendering different services.

Table 3.25 Most preferred app

Payment app Respondents Percentage

Google

Pay
54 90

Phone Pe 6 10

Total 60 100

Source: Primary data

Figure 3.25 Most preferred app

46
Source :table 3.25

INTERPRETATION:

Here, 90% of the respondents stated that they would refer Google pay to their friends and only a
fraction of 10% of the respondents would refer phone pe .

Table 3.26 Rating

of Google Pay

Google
Pay
No of Percentage
respondents
0-1 0 0

1-2 0 0

2-3 0 0

3-4 0 0

4-5 4 6.6

5-6 6 10

6-7 10 16.7

7-8 22 36.7

8-9 11 18.3

47
 9-10 7 11.7

Total 60 100
Source: Primary data
Figure: 3.26 Rating of Google Pay

Source: Table 3.26

INTREPERTATIION:

On a scale of 10 a majority of 36.7% of the respondents has given an ‘8’ and 6.7% has given ‘5’
for
Google Pay. This shows that Google pay has good rating among the respondents.

48
 Table 3.27

Rating of Phone

Pe

Phone
Pe
No of respondents Percentage

0-1 0 0

1-2 0 0

2-3 1 1.6

3-4 4 6.7

4-5 9 15

5-6 13 21.7

6-7 10 16.7

7-8 14 23.3

8-9 5 8.3

9-10 4 6.7

Total 60 100

Source: Primary data

Figure: 3.27 Rating of Phone Pe

49
 INTERPRETATION:

On a scale of 10 a majority of 23.3% of the respondents has given an ‘8’ and 1.7% has given ‘3’
for
Phone Pe.

50
 CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

51
4.1 FINDINGS

• Respondents in the age category of 18-35, account of 78.3% of the response, which
indicates that the younger generation has more active participation in this project.
This implies that online payments are of much use among the younger generation as
comparedto the rest.
• A majority of 53.3% of respondents are women who use Google pay and Phonepe.

• A majority of 76.7% of respondents are students who use Google Pay and Phonepe.

• A majority of 90% of the respondents use Google Pay or Phone pe.

• Respondents not using online payment in this project are of the opinion that online
payments are not safe due to reasons such that of fraudulent activities, insecurity,
lack of trust, technical issues etc.

• A majority of 96.7% of respondent’s phones support google pay or phone pay

• Most of the respondents prefer to use Google Pay than Phone Pe. This indicates that
Google Pay is the most widely known and used app.

• 46.7% of people have been using the payment app below one year and 35% for one
to twoyears and 18.3% more than two years.

• Majority of the respondents stated‘satisfied’ with the service provided by Google

Payin
terms of convenience, user friendly, speed, security and communication language.

• Majority of the respondents stated‘satisfied’ with the service provided by Phone

Pein
terms of convenience, user friendly, speed, security and communication language.
• Most of the respondents preferred to use Google Pay or Phone pe weekly for
theirtransactions which shows the increasing popularity of the applications.
• A majority of 91.7% of respondents use Google Pay than Phone Pe.

• Google Pay provides more (85%) payment options when compared to Phone Pe (15%)

52
 Customer queries and problems are given fast responds by Google .This indicates
that Google Pay is readily available to meet the needs of the customers and are customer
friendly.
• Majority of the respondents find Google Pay more cost effective as well as time
effective than Phone pe.
• As compared to phone pe it has been observed that google pay uses less legal
formalities as when compared to phone pe.
• About 85% of the respondents has stated that Google Pay offers more rewards than
that of Phone Pe (9%). 45% of the respondents agree that Google Pay has more
offers thanthat of Phone Pe (15%). 45% of the respondents agree that Google Pay
has more cash back than that of Phone Pe(15%).
• Majority of the respondents (83.3%) have not faced any problem of cash
loss. But16.7% of respondents lost cash through Google pay.

• About 58.3% of respondents trust the security of Online Banking Services and only
a small fraction of 6.7% feel that it’s not secure. But 35% of respondents are neutral
on security services rendered.
• A majority of 58.3% of respondents find the quality of Google Pay as excellent and
no number of respondents find the quality poor.
• A majority of 62.7% of respondents find the quality of Phone Pe as
excellent and5.9% of respondents find the quality poor.

• A majority of 88% of the respondents has preferred to use Google Pay for bill
payment, 80% for mobile recharge, 93% for fund transfer, 82% for ticket booking,
78% for food ordering, 88% for application fees, 87% for tax payment and 83% for
others. This indicates that Google Pay is more preferred more.
• Google pay is used for both restaurants and other services (38.3%) more than stores
(23.3%).
• Phone Pe is used for other services (46.8%) more than restaurant (25.5%) and
stores (27.7%). This indicates that Google pay is acceptable foe rendering
different services.

• Here, google pay (90%) is the most preferred app, and only a fraction of 10% prefer
53
 phonepe (10%).

• On a scale of 10 a majority of 36.7% of the respondents has given an ‘8’ and

6.7% hasgiven ‘5’ for Google Pay.
• On a scale of 10 a majority of 23.3% of the respondents has given an ‘8’ and
1.7% hasgiven ‘3’ for Phone Pe.

54
4.2 SUGGESTIONS

Both google pay and phone pe can revolutionize online payments and take cashless
transaction tothe next level, But then
• The customers need to be convinced about the safety of mobile wallets and their
advantages.
• They need to be induced to use mobile wallets for all kinds of payments by
makingattractive offers sucha s cashback offer etc.
• All doubts and ignorances in that regard need to be addressed effectively to pump
up theuse of mobile wallets.

55
4.3 CONCLUSION

Consumers’ knowledge about new mobile technology innovation is increasing rapidly,

and consumer’s perception is most important in the usage of mobile wallet application in
India. Consumers’ need has increased with advanced technology. Consequently mobile
wallets service providers are innovating new technology from consumer’s point of view.
Therefore, people can
adopt and use their mobile wallets for the payment transaction, fund transfer, purchasing
groceries and paying bills etc. The study has discussed the trust is the main factor affecting
users’ satisfaction directly and it impacts on many users intention to adopt mobile wallets.
The results show that the trust has significantly positive impact on actual usage of mobile
wallets. Vidyashree et. al., (2015) found that mobile wallet provides an opportunity of cash
back and discounts. The study highlights that 18-30, 30-45 age group of people satisfied and
using of digital wallets like paytm or pay u money application.

56
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

JOURNALS
1. Aijaz A. Shaikh &HeikkiKarjaluoto (2016)-Mobile banking services continuous
usage – Casestudy of Finland

2. Ajax Persaud and Irfan Azhar (2012) “Innovative mobile marketing via smartphones

Are consumers ready?”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 30 No. 4,

2012, pp. 418-443, DOI 10.1108/02634501211231883, Emerald Group Publishing

Limited 0263-4503

3. Anjali Ahuja &Richa Joshi (2018) “Customer Perception towards Mobile Wallet”,
IJRDO-
Journal of Business Management - ISSN: 2455-6661.

4. BasavarajNageshKadamudimatha (2016) “Digital Wallet: The next way of

growth” -International Journal of Commerce and Management Research.

5. Dennehy, D. &Sammon, D., 2015. “Trends in mobile payments research: A

literaturereview”, Journal of Innovation Management, 3(1), pp. 49-61.
WEBSITES

1. [Link]

2. [Link]

3. [Link]

4. [Link]

57
 QUESTIONNAIRE

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ON GOOGLE PAY AND PHONE PE

1. NAME:

2. AGE: (a) Above 18 (b) 25-35 (c) 35-45 (d) 45 and above

3. GENDER: (a) Male (b) Female (c) Transgender

4. OCCUPATION: : (a) Student (b) Government employee (c) Private employee (d)
Others

5. Do you think using online payment can offer you a wider range of banking
services andpayment options?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Maybe

6. If no, select the reason for not using online payment.

a) Lack of technical knowledge

b) Unsecure
c) Chance of fraud
d) Lack of trust
e) Others

7. Does your phone support these apps? (Phone Pe, Google Pay)

a) Yes
b) No

58
8. Which app do you prefer more for online payment?

a) Phone pe
b) Google pay
9. How long have you been using this app?

a) Below 1 year
b) 1-2 years
c) Above 2 years

10. Are you satisfied with the service Google pay provide you?

CONVENIENT
a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Highly

dissatisfied USER

FRIENDLY

a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Highly

dissatisfiedSPEED

a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Highly dissatisfied

59
 SECURITY
f) Highly

dissatisfied USER

FRIENDLY

a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
Neutral
a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Highly dissatisfied

COMMUNICATION

LANGUAGE

a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Highly dissatisfied

11. Are you satisfied with the service Phone pe provide you?

CONVENIENT

a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied

60
 c) Highly dissatisfied

SPEED

a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Highly
dissatisfiedSECURITY

a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Highly dissatisfied

COMMUNICATION

LANGUAGE

a) Highly satisfied
b) Satisfied
c) Neutral
d) Dissatisfied
e) Highly dissatisfied

12. How often do you use this app?

a) Daily
b) Weekly
c) Monthly
d) Occasionally

61
13. What is your preferred payment app for transferring money among peers?

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

14. Which payment app provides more payment options?

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe
15. Which app has quick response to your (customer) queries?

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

16. Which app is more likely to be cost and time effective?

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

17. Which app does not require much legal formalities to start p?

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

18. Which app provides more promotional offers?

REWARDS

c) Google pay
d) Phone

peOFFERS

a) Google pay
b) Phone

pe CASH

BACK

62
 a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

19. Have you ever had cash lose from your account, If yes from

a. Google pay

c) Google pay
d) Phone pe

e) Google pay
f) Phone pe

20. Do you trust the security of online banking services?

a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe

21. How would you rate the quality of Google pay?

a. Excellent
b. Average
c. Poor
22. How would you rate the quality of phone pe?

a. Excellent
b. Average
c. Poor

23. Which app do you prefer more for the following?

BILL PAYMENT

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

MOBILE
63
RECHARGE

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

FUND

TRANSFER U

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

TICKET BOOKING

a) Google pay
b) Phone

pe FOOD

ORDER

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

APPLICATION

FEES

a) Google pay
b) Phone

peTAX PAY

a) Google pay
b) Phone

peOTHERS

a) Google pay
b) Phone pe

64
24. Does your preferred app (Google pay) provide services at:

a) Restaurant
b) Stores
c) Others

25. . Does your preferred app (Phone pe) provide services at:

a) Restaurant
b) Stores
c) Others
26. Which of these apps would you recommend to your friends?

a) Google pay

b) Phone pe

27. How would you rate Google pay on a scale of 10?

a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
e) 5
f) 6
g) 7
h) 8
i) 9
j) 10

28. How would you rate Phone pe on a scale of 10?

a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
e) 5

65
f) 6
g) 7
h) 8
i) 9
j) 10

66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89