i

A STUDY ON IMPACT OF MOBILE WALLETS

AMONG INDIAN YOUNGSTERS

PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

MUHAMMED SAMIL MUSTHAFA

REGISTER No: 18206028

In partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

Of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
IN
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

HINDUSTHAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

APPROVED BY AICTE, ACCREDITED WITH ‘A’ GRADE BY NAAC AND NBA
(AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION, AFFILIATED TO ANNA UNIVERSITY)
OTHAKALMANDAPAM POST, COIMBATORE

MAY 2020
 ii

HINDUSTHAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

APPROVED BY AICTE, NEW DELHI, ACCREDITED WITH ‘A’ GRADE BY NAAC
(AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION, AFFILIATED TO ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI)
OTHAKALMANDABAM POST, COIMBATORE

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

PROJECT WORK

MAY 2020

This is to certify that the project entitled

A STUDY ON IMPACT OF MOBILE WALLETS AMONG INDIAN

YOUNGSTERS

Is the bonafide record of project work done by

MUHAMMED SAMIL MUSTHAFA

REGISTER No: 18206028

Of II MBA (Master of Business Administration) during the year 2019-2020.

Mrs.V.Kanimozhi Dr. K. Samuvel

Project Guide Head of the Department

Submitted for the project viva-voce examination held on

Internal Examiner
 iii

DECLARATION

I affirm that the project title “A STUDY ON IMPACT OF MOBILE WALLETS

AMONG INDIAN YOUNGSTERS”being submitted in partial fulfillment for the award

of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION is the original work carried out by
me. It is not formed the part of any other record work submitted for award of any degree or
diploma, either in this or any other university.

MUHAMMED SAMIL MUSTHAFA

REGISTER No: 18206028

 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I first and foremost thank the almighty for having bestowed his blessings on me to complete
the project.
I am solemnly indebted to our beloved Academic Advisor, Dr.S.Annadurai M.E., Ph.D.
Hindusthan College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore for his support and
encouragement.
I am indebted to our beloved principal Dr.T.Kannadasan M.E., Ph.D., Hindustan College
of Engineering & Technology, Coimbatore for his support and encouragement.
I take this opportunity to thankDr.K.Samuvel MBA., M.com., MSc(Psy)., M.Phil.,
Ph.D., HOD, Department of Management Sciences, Hindustan College of Engineering &
Technology, Coimbatore for supporting me to complete this project work.
I thank my project guide Ms. V. Kanimozhi MBA., SET, NET., (Ph.D.) Assistant
professor, Department of Management Sciences, Hindustan College of Engineering & Technology,
Coimbatore for her timely advice and guidelines which assisted me in completing the project work
successfully.
I like to express my gratitude to all the faculty members of Department of Management
Sciences, Hindustan College of Engineering & Technology, Coimbatore under whose valuable
guidance the project workwas done.
My special thanks to my Parents, Friends and Well-wishers for their moral support
throughout the project work period.

\
 v

ABSTRACT
In recent years, mobile wallets (m-wallets), a special form of mobile payment, have garnered
much attention in various emerging markets. M-wallets were designed to offer customers swiftness,
ease of use, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and accessibility. Despite these benefits, usage
intentions and adoption of m-wallets in most emerging markets have been low, and they have not
received widespread acceptance. Notably, existing research related to intentions to use (IUs) mobile
payments has largely focused on developed economies and mobile payments in general.
Additionally, few studies have examined intentions to recommend (ITRs), even though researchers
have recognized that word-of-mouth is an important driver of consumer behavior.

Keywords: M-wallet, Digital payment, Youngsters, Perception, Cashless transaction

 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER CONTENTS PG.NO

List of Tables vii

List of Charts ix

I Introduction 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Statement of problem 2

1.3 Objectives of the study 2

1.4 Research methodology 3

1.5 Scope of the study 3

1.6 Limitations of the study 4

II Review of Literature 5

III Industry Overview 9

IV Analysis and Interpretation 14

V Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion 60

5.1 Findings 60

5.2 Suggestions 62

5.3 Conclusion 63

Bibliography 64

Annexure 65
 vii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO LIST OF TABLES PG.NO

4.1.1 Distribution of respondents based on gender 15

4.1.2 Age (in Years) 16

4.1.3 marital status 17

4.1.4 Educational qualification 18

4.1.5 Occupation 19

4.1.6 Annual income 20

4.1.7 Nationality 21

4.1.8 use your smart phone for completing a monetary transaction 22

4.1.9 Preference digital banking: 23

4.1.10 aware about m-wallets 24

4.1.11 Are you using m-wallets 25

4.1.12 Rate the following reason if you are not using m-wallets 26

4.1.13 rate your level of awareness about m-wallets 27

4.1.14 source of awareness about m-wallet 28

4.1.15 usage M wallet system in a month 29

4.1.16 Rate your satisfaction in Use of M wallet mode 30

4.1.17 Preferred M-Wallet 31

4.1.18 Purpose of using M-Wallet 32

4.1.19 Factors influence you to opt mobile wallets 34

4.1.20 spend through m-wallet mont 37

4.1.21 spending increased due to usage of m-wallets 38

4.1.22 save or lose money after using m-wallets 39

 viii

4.1.23 Do you prefer for going back to traditional payment syst 40

4.1.24 faced any security issues at the time of payment 41

4.1.25 m-wallet app will you suggest to others 42

4.1.26 use the wallet apps issued by bank 43

4.1.27 Will you suggest the m-wallet to more friends 44

4.2 ANOVA 45

4.3 Chi-square 48

4.4 Correlation 50
 ix

LIST OF CHARTS
CHART NO LIST OF CHARTS PG.NO

4.1.1 Distribution of respondents based on gender 15

4.1.2 Age (in Years) 16

4.1.3 marital status 17

4.1.4 Educational qualification 18

4.1.5 Occupation 19

4.1.6 Annual income 20

4.1.7 Nationality 21

4.1.8 use your smart phone for completing a monetary transaction 22

4.1.9 Preference digital banking: 23

4.1.10 aware about m-wallets 24

4.1.11 Are you using m-wallets 25

4.1.13 rate your level of awareness about m-wallets 27

4.1.14 source of awareness about m-wallet 28

4.1.15 usage M wallet system in a month 29

4.1.16 Rate your satisfaction in Use of M wallet mode 30

4.1.20 spend through m-wallet monthly 37

4.1.21 spending increased due to usage of m-wallets 38

4.1.22 save or lose money after using m-wallets 39

4.1.23 Do you prefer for going back to traditional payment syst 40

4.1.24 faced any security issues at the time of payment 41

4.1.25 m-wallet app will you suggest to others 42

4.1.26 use the wallet apps issued by bank 43

4.1.27 Will you suggest the m-wallet to more friends 44

 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1INTRODUCTION
A mobile wallet is a virtual wallet that stores payment card information on a mobile
device. Mobile wallets are a convenient way for a user to make in-store payments and can
be used at merchants listed with the mobile wallet service provider..

The business-consumer relationship is swiftly becoming digital. From e-commerce

platforms to robo-advisors, businesses are transforming the way they operate to meet the
ever-changing needs of their clients and the increasing use of mobile phones and devices.
Companies in the financial sector are emerging that offer digital platforms and solutions
and recognized as members of the Fintech sector. These emerging companies create
disruptive tools and services that are easily accessible at a low cost. One area of the
financial industry that is rife with innovations is the payments sector. Using mobile
technology such as smartphones, tablets or smartwatches, companies and users are
adapting to online and offline transactions using devices such as a mobile wallet.

The mobile wallet is an app that can be installed on a smartphone or it is an existing built-
in feature of a smartphone. A mobile wallet stores credit card, debit card, coupons, or
reward cards information. Once the app is installed and the user inputs payment
information, the wallet stores this information by linking a personal identification format
such as a number or key, QR code or an image of the owner to each card that is stored.

Primarily, a mobile wallet allows an individual to receive payments as well as pay using a
mobile device. Usually, a mobile wallet is provided through some payment processing
models. This includes:

 Mobile-based billing– An individual generally receive/sends payment through

their mobile service provider.
 SMS-based transactions– This involves initiating transactions by sending an SMS
short code. The payment can be debited/credited from the configured bank
account, mobile service or credit card.
 2

 Mobile web payments– enable users to receive/send payments through a mobile

app.
 Near-field communications (NFC) – In this case, a special hardware in the mobile
device and a mobile app relate with a payment-processing terminal.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

As M-wallet is surging on an account of growing online payment transactions in INDIA, this

study was undertaken to have an insight about the impact of M-wallets among youngsters.
The reason for choosing youngsters for this study is that the m wallets are most commonly
used by the young people for various purposes, so they can only provide genuine feedbacks
about all aspects of current m wallets. The study helps in understanding the factors
influencing youth towards M-wallet. It helps us to know the adoption of technology by the
youth, which are provided by the M-wallet payment gateway services providers. The study
also aims to find the factors influencing the perception of the youth towards M-wallets.

Mobile wallet is a very young concept in India that has taken on consumer psyche rapidly.
Everyone is loving mobile wallets and embracing them with open arms. Today, mobile wallet
is one of the successful business ideas for start-ups. The evidence lies in the fact that it has
surpassed credit cards in terms of the number of users in just a fraction of time. Vijay Shekar
Sharma’s venture Paytm alone has 20 million active users. The number is higher than the
cumulative number of credit cards in India. At present, there are 10-12 mobile wallet
companies operating in the country.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data speaks of 19.9 million credit cards issued by 55
scheduled commercial banks in India till October 2014 in which HDFC Bank has issued the
highest number of credit cards – 5.6 million – followed by 3.3 million by ICICI Bank.

In a very short time the size of mobile wallet market in India grew significantly. According to
a study by research firm RNCOS, the current Indian market size for mobile wallet (m-wallet)
stands at about Rs 350 crore and is estimated to rise to Rs 1,210 crore by 2019.

1.3 Objective Of The Study

 To identify the level awareness of youth about mobile wallets
 To examine the perception of users towards the mobile wallet
 To study the factors influencing youth towards E-wallet
 To analyze the Impact of digital payment in youths
 3

1.4 Research Methodology

Research methodology is a systematic way to solve a research problem. It may be

understood as a science of studying how research is done scientifically. It includes the
overall design, the sampling procedures and data collection method.

1.4.1 Research Design

Research design adopted for this research is “Descriptive Research”. It includes a
closed-end questionnaire, which was prepared with questions including employee’s
demographic profile. The questionnaire has been properly prepared in order to cover
all the specific Information required for the study.
1.4.2 Sample Size
A Structured questionnaire was used as the research instrument. Sample size of the
research study is 150. The population of the study is the M-wallet users of south India
1.4.3 Method of Data Collection
This study is conducted based on both primary and secondary data sources.
 Primary Data
Primary source is a source that collects the first hand information or original data on a
topic. Interview technique was used with structured questionnaire which was adopted
from the previous studies.
 Secondary Data
Secondary source is a source from where I collect data that has already been
published. The sources for the secondary data for this project was collected from
journal articles, research papers, internet sources, company websites etc.
1.4.4 Tools Used For Analysis
The following tools are used for analysis:

 Frequency Analysis
 Pearson's chi-square test
 Correlation
 ANOVA (Analysis of Variance)

1.5 Scope Of The Study

 The study covers the M-wallet users of South India.
 To find out the impact of M-wallets in india youngsters.
 4

1.6 Limitations Of The Study

 Small sample size of people(150)
 Less interest shown by respondents in filling their opinions.
 Time limit is also a constraint.
 5

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
(poonam painuly, 2016) 1 in their research paper “Mobile wallet :An upcoming mode of
business transaction “have analysed that ease of transaction ,secured profile and convenience
in handling application put forth the benefits of wallet money and also concluded that
business sectors like banking ,retail, hospitality etc., are making use of wallet money and
mobile payment instruments including contactless and remote payment in the customers –
business and customers to customers areas.

(Rajesh Krishna Balan, 2006) 2 in their research paper “Digital wallet: Requirement and
challenges “have identified about Singapore’s use of digital wallet and analysed the key
challenges in building and deploying a digital wallet.

(Rathore, 2016) 3 in her research paper “Adoption of Digital wallet by consumers “have
analysed about the factors that influence consumers in adoption of digital wallet and also
analysed the risk and challenges faced by consumers in usage of digital wallet and concluded
that shoppers are adopting digital wallet largely due to convenience and ease to use and in the
future years digital wallet will gain more widespread acceptance

(SanazZarrinKafsh, 2015) 4in their paper “Developing consumer Adoption Model on the
mobile wallet in Canada," has discussed about the direction of the work and discovered the
elements that determine the user's acceptance of e-wallets, and also they found that there is
the relationship among comprehended utilization, perceived security and easy in foreseeing
the usage of M-wallet

1
(poonam painuly, 2016)Mobile wallet :An upcoming mode of business transaction. international
journal of management and social science, 2321-1784.
2
(Rajesh Krishna Balan, 2006)Digital Wallet: Requirements and Challenges . Singapore Management
University , 205-505.
3
(Rathore, 2016)adoption of digital wallet by consumers. BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research,
69-75.
4
(SanazZarrinKafsh, 2015)Developing consumer Adoption Model on the mobile wallet in Canada. IJRS,
50-62.
 6

(Neeharika, 2014)5explain an outstanding thing for the implementation of mobile wallet that
are able to work in several areas and also work on the security challenges by affording
control over several models towards mobile wallet.

(Kumar, 2014)6conducted a study on “Paytm," and included the accomplishments of paytm,

its working architecture and technologies were examined in the paper a survey based on
supply chain management, paytmtechnologies,are described in the digital transaction system.

(NgocDoan, 2014)7discover a work on "Consumer adoption in Mobile wallet (A study of

consumers in Finland),"states the adoption of M-wallet users in Finland and the success of
Mwallets based on different financial policymakers in Finland.

(NitikaRai, 2012) 8 in her paper on "M-wallet: An SMS based payment scheme", which
described about substitution in the existing payment effects like debitcards, credit-card, and
money with short Messaging services (SMS) on every mobile phones regardless of the
network carrier

(ShwetaRathore, 2016)9describes that smartphone has become an essential part of daily life.
Because of various applications like money transaction or payment, etc. and he conducted a
survey the different factors that can involve a user's decision to adopt digital wallet as an
online payment mode.

(Dr.PankajTiwari, 2017) 10 made a study on "Demonetization in India an Era for Digital

Payments," in this paper he describes India as a country, now in conversion towards a
moneyless economy, and highlighted the growth opportunities for the digital payments, the

5
(Neeharika, 2014)study on moble wallets. IJRS.

6
(Kumar, 2014)study on paytm transaction. Indian journal of management science, 65-95.

7
(NgocDoan, 2014)consumer adoption in Mobile wallet. IJRS, 65-79.

8
(NitikaRai, 2012)Emerging Trends in Engineering & Technology . International Journal of Engineering
Research and Applications (IJERA), 2248-9622 .
9
(ShwetaRathore, 2016) smartphone has become an essential part of daily life. IJRT, 50-
62.demonitization in India an era of digital payment. Journal ofscience andtechnology policy
management , vol 10 issue 1.
10
(Dr.PankajTiwari, 2017)demonitization in India an era of digital payment. Journal ofscience
andtechnology policy management , vol 10 issue 1.
 7

practice of using the money, difficulty, and unusualness of online payment systems, shortage
of compelling value proposition, and fear over fraud and network security.

(MajidTaghiloo, 2010)11explained a new way for digital wallet based on personal digital
assistant that gives the characteristics of emerging design of secured conservative, false
toleration, and infrastructureless protocol.

(Upadhyaya, 2012)12 have worked on "Electronic Commerce and E-Wallet," in electronic

commerce, the issues of payment transactions have primarily miscalculated. Inorder to
apprehend the concept of e-commerce, Ewallet become a handy, easy-to-use, cozy global
price machine. it's far greater bendy "personal banking system " with some pay-in
alternatives. IPayout uses the security systems that ensure Ewallet security.

(Neil Daswani, 1998)13constructed a study on "SWAPEROO” this paper,they advise a novel

virtual wallet architecture that is extensible (can blosters a couple of present and newly
deployed protocols and devices),symmetric (has not unusual device management and
protocol management interfaces for the duration of end-client, supplier, and monetary
institution packages), nonweb-centric (can be carried out in non-net environments), and
purchaser-pushed (the person initiates all operations, including pockets invocation).

(Glenn Ergeerts, 2012)14investigated how an NFC-enabled cellphone may be used as an e-

wallet in that to start with depended on DESFiretags.Ultimately, the consumerpockets
interface turned into scrutinized, specially regarding accessibility of the wallet content for the
cellphone systems.

11
(MajidTaghiloo, 2010)digital wallets. IJRS.

12
(Upadhyaya, 2012)electronic commerce and E-wallet. International Journal of Recent Research and
Review, 2277 – 8322.
13
(Neil Daswani, 1998) swaperoo. Andreas Paepcke Stanford University.
14
(Glenn Ergeerts, 2012)m-wallet. IJRS, 50--62.
 8

(Dr.G.Vincent, 2016)15defined the performance of E-Wallet. The use of traditional payments

using either debit cards or credit card is replaced by E-Wallet. He additionally mentioned that
but, in light of advances in era, traditional enterprise fashions are multiplied coming up in
opposition to their limits. This paper analyses the e-price system and throws mild on E-wallet
device of digital payment.

15
(Dr.G.Vincent, 2016) e-wallet. European Journal of Business and Management, 2222-2839.
 9

CHAPTER 3
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
3.1 Introduction
India is slowly paving its way towards a cashless society, from those heavy physical wallets
to virtual wallets; we’re transforming at a significant pace. Remember those days, when we
would carry those bulky wallets full of cash and credit? But all thanks to mobile wallets, for
reducing our freight whilst making payments and transactions easier. Now, we can pay for
almost any product or service, transfer money, make bill payments, book tickets etc at the
comfort of our home. Gone are the days when you had to wait for hours just to get your hands
on that ‘first day, first show’ ticket of your favorite movie.

Mobile wallets have made our lives much easier, with its one-tap feature and quick
processing all at one-go. Mobile wallets are designed to enable a secure and integrated flow
of transactions with hassle-free process. A mobile wallet uses a bank account, credit/debit
card information to process payments seamlessly while fully securing all the details of the
user. These wallet helps lower the paying processing time, reduce fraud and are economical
as compared to other physical wallets.

Demonetization by the Indian government also gave a push to these wallets, and since then,
the user base of these wallets have been constantly increasing. Before demonetization, cash
transactions accounted for almost 95% of transactions, 85% of people were still paid in cash,
and almost 70% of shoppers voted ‘Cash on delivery’ as the most preferred mode of
payment. Yet according to some estimates, the India mobile wallet industry is set to grow by
150% next year, with the transactions amounting to $4.4 billion.

Advantages of mobile wallets

According to a 2017 study of MasterCard digital payments study “Mobile wallets continue to
gain prominence in smartphones and laptops across the globe and dominated the discussions
of new ways to pay. With the topic now topping 75% of conversations tracked in the 2017”.
Such a rapid increase in penetration of such wallets is because of the advantages they hold.
 10

Some of the advantages of using mobile wallets are:-

 One-click pay
In addition for being convenient, the payments on mobile wallets are quickly
processed. A user can pay through such wallets easily and without going through
much hassle. A mobile wallet takes information of your debit/credit card, making it
easy for you to add money or make payments directly. This easy accessibility and
usage help users to accelerate the whole process.
 Easily accessible-
Such wallets are easily accessible and can be used at any place or time. You just need
your mobile phone and a good internet connection to use these wallets. Since you’re
never going to leave your cell phones at home, you always have access to cash in any
urgent situation.

 Multiple uses-

You can not only make payments through these wallets but can also transfer money,
pay bills, shop online etc. These wallets can be used in multiple ways in a fraction of
your time.

 Robust security features-

Mobile wallets provide extensive safety and security to your stored money. Most
users switch from physical wallets to mobile wallets for an extra layer of protection.
Mobile wallets also reduce the chances of money being stolen or lost. Each mobile
wallet comes with robust security features to keep all the financial transactions safe
and secure.

 Several benefits

Mobile wallets host several other benefits like loyalty programmes, cashbacks,
rewards etc. Mobile wallets like Paytm provides great benefits and cashbacks for
purchases made or paid through its wallet. At the same time, a person can also save
money through heavy discounts and offers.

.
 11

GDP Growth Rate:

Today the digital economy is around 15 per cent of the global GDP. In India, it is about 8 per
cent of the GDP and is likely to increase up to 30 per cent of the GDP in 2025.

(Rai.,) said as per projections, digital economy will be 60 per cent of the global GDP by
2030.Noting that it was impossible to imagine any infrastructure today without the
Information and Communications Technology (ICT), he said the growth in this sector has
been "mindboggling”. The artificial intelligence (AI) has surprised in the way it has made its
presence felt and asserted that it is hard to find an electronic device these days which does not
have an AI built-in engine.60 per cent of organisations will have AI embedded in their work
by 2025.
India Mobile Wallet Market Size & Analysis:-

India is one of the fastest growing economies of the world, and it is home to over 1.3 billion
people. The country recorded strong GDP growth of 6.5% in 2017, despite some headwinds
from GST. India's digital payment industry showed promise and registered double digit value
growth during 2013-17. India's middle class continues to grow and IMF's GDP growth
forecast for FY2019 is much better at 7.4%, this will improve business sentiments and benefit
different industries including mobile wallet market.According to India Mobile Wallet Market
Size & Analysis, Forecast & Opportunities, 2018-2023, mobile wallet market registered
whopping double digit value growth, with a CAGR of 67.10% during review period of 2013-
17 despite headwinds like mandatory KYC. The market advanced on the back of rising
digital awareness, increasing smartphone ownership coupled with surging internet
penetration, and convenience associated with such services.

The market is forecast to gain immensely during forecast period of 2018-23 to reach
around USD 7 Billion by 2023, on account of Government's increased focus to make India a
cashless and digital economy. This will help the industry and directly benefit companies like
Paytm, Mobikwik, FreeCharge, Oxigen and many others.

As far as competitive landscape is concerned, Paytm continues to dominate the

market by significant margin followed by tens of players. India mobile wallet has seen
growing investment from companies like Google and WhatsApp, who have announced
significant investments in the country. Digital payment awareness is anticipated to continue
 12

through 2023 and onwards and mobile wallet penetration is likely to go up even in Tier II and
Tier III cities through 2023.

Competitive Market Share

The E-wallet market is led by major players in the Asia Pacific region including WeChat and
Alipay. These vendors are forming partnerships with various merchants to increase the usage
of their mobile wallet offerings. Device manufacturers and banking establishments, such as
Chase Pay and Apple, are providing lucrative offers to increase the use of their mobile
wallets across various e-commerce platforms & merchants. They are also strategically
acquiring of various mobile technology providers to enhance its product capabilities. For
instance, in December 2017, JP Morgan Chase acquired WePay, a fintech start-up to integrate
its API solution that can handle payment processing, fraud detection, and complex payouts
in its product offerings.

Some of the key players operating in the mobile wallet marketinclude:-

 Apple
 PayPal
 Samsung
 JP Morgan Chase
 Amazon
 Tencent
 Google
 Ant Financial
 One97 Communications Limited
 Vodafone,
 Sprint Corporation
 Mastercard
 Visa
 First Data
 13

Mobile Wallet Market Report Coverage

Report
Details
Coverage
80
Base Year: 2018 Market Size in 2018: Billion
(USD)
2014 2019
Historical
to Forecast Period: to
Data for:
2018 2025
Forecast
270
Period 2019
15% 2025 Value Projection: Billion
to 2025
(USD)
CAGR:
Pages: 300 Tables, Charts & Figures: 378
Geographies U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Russia,
covered Australia, China, India, Japan, Singapore, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, UAE,
(20): Saudi Arabia, South Africa
Segments
Type, Ownership, Technology, and Region
covered:
Amazon.com, Inc., American Express Company, Ant Financial Services
Group, Allied Wallet, Inc., Apple Inc., AT&T Inc., Barclays plc, Due Inc.,
Companies First Data Corporation, Google LLC, ICICI Bank Limited, J.P. Morgan Chase
covered & Co., Mastercard Incorporated, Mozido Inc., One Mobikwik System Pvt Ltd.,
(23): One, Communications Limited, PayPal Holdings, Inc., Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd., Skrill Ltd., Tencent Holdings Limited., Visa Inc., Vodafone Group
PLC, Wells Fargo & Company
 Increasing penetration of smartphones
 Rise of various e-commerce platforms
Growth
 Supportive government initiatives
Drivers:
 Attractive discounts and cashback offers by mobile wallet providers
 Changing customers preferences towards digital payments
Pitfalls &  Data security issues
Challenges:  Lack of clear regulatory framework
 14

CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the following:
4.1 Demographic profile of the respondents
4.2 To analyse the level awareness of youth about mobile wallets
4.3 To understand the perception of users towards the mobile wallet
4.4 To find out the factors influencing youth towards M-wallet
4.5 To understand the Impact of digital payment in youths
4.6 Other analysis

Tools Used for analysis

Statistical package for the social science (SPSS) is used to analyse quantitative data
effectively. Various techniques used for analysis are:

 Frequency analysis

 Chi –square

 ANOVA

 Correlation
 15

4.1 Frequency Analysis:-

Table 4.1.1 Distribution of respondents based on gender

Sl.no Gender Frequency Percent

Male 78 52.0

Female 72 48.0

Total 150 100.0

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.1 it can be inferred that majority (52%) of the respondents are Male, 48% of
the respondents are Female

Chart 4.1.1 Gender

 16

Table 4.1.2 Age (in Years)

S. No Age (in Years) Frequency Percent

1
21-23 18 12.0
2
24-26 97 64.7
3
27-30 18 12.0
4
Above 31 12 8.0

Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.2 it can be inferred that majority (64.7%) of the respondents belong to the age
group of 24-26 years, 12% of the respondents belong to the age group of 21-23 & 27-30
years, 8% of the respondents belong to the age group of above31.

Chart 4.1.2 Age (in Years)

 17

Table 4.1.3 marital status

S. No Marital status Frequency Percent

1 Single 124 82.7

2 Married 26 17.3

Total 150 100.0

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.3 it can be inferred that majority (82.7%) of the respondents are Single
&17.3% of the respondents are married.

Chart 4.1.3 marital status

 18

Table 4.1.4 Educational qualification

S. No Educational qualification Frequency Percent

1
Schooling 6 4.0
2
Diploma 12 8.0
3
UG 65 43.3
4
PG 65 43.3
5
Others 2 1.3
Total 150 100

Source: Primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.4 it can be inferred that most (43.3%) of the respondents are both Post
Graduates and graduates, 8% of the respondents are belonging to Diploma,4% belongs to
Schooling and rest 1.3% of respondents belongs to other category.

Chart 4.1.4 Educational qualification

 19

Table 4.1.5Occupation

S. No Occupation Frequency Percent

1
Business 18 12.0
2
Employee 41 27.3
3
Self Employed 1 .7
4
Student 79 52.7
5
Others 11 7.3

Total 150 100

Source: primary
Interpretation

From table 4.1.5 it can be inferred that most (52.7%) of the respondents are students, 27.3%
of the respondents are Employees, 12% of the respondents are belonging to business, 7.3%
belongs other category and remaining 0.7% belongs to self employed.
Chart 4.1.5 occupation of the Respondents
 20

Table 4.1.6 Annual income

S. No Annual income Frequency Percent

1
Below 200000 82 54.7
2
200000-400000 36 24.0
3
400001-500000 17 11.3
4
Above 500000 15 10.0
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.6 it can be inferred that majority (54.7%) of the respondents annual income
are Below Rs. 2,00,000, 24.% of the respondents annual income is ranging from Rs.
2,00,000- Rs. 4,00,000, 11.3% of the respondents are belonging to Rs. 4,00,001- Rs. 5,00,000
and remaining 10% belongs to income range Above Rs. 5,00,000.

Chart 4.1.6.Annual income

 21

Table 4.1.7Nationality

S. No Nationality Frequency Percent

1
Indian 150 100.0
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.7 All the respondents are Indians

Chart 4.1.7. Are you aware about Digital Payment

 22

Table 4.1.8Do you use your smart phone for completing a monetary transaction?

S. No Smart phone Frequency Percent

1 Yes
135 90.0
2 No
15 10.0
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.8 it can be inferred that most (90%) of the respondents uses smart phones for
completing a monetary transaction. And remaining 10 % doesn’t.

Chart 4.1.8Do you use your smart phone for completing a monetary transaction?
 23

Table 4.1.9 Do you prefer digital banking:

Do you prefer digital

S. No Frequency Percent
banking?

1
Yes 138 92.0
2
No 12 8.0
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.9 it can be inferred that most (92%) of the respondents prefer dgital banking
and remaining 12% doesn’t prefer digital banking.

Chart 4.1.9Do you prefer digital banking

 24

Table 4.1.10Are you aware about m-wallets?

Are you aware about m-

S. No Frequency Percent
wallets?

1
Yes 133 88.7
2
No 17 11.3
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.10 it can be inferred that most (88.7%) of the respondents are aware about m-
wallets and remaining 11.3% are not aware.

Chart 4.1.10Are you aware about m-wallets

 25

Table 4.1.11Are you using m-wallets?

S. No Are you using m-wallets? Frequency Percent

1
Yes 129 86.0
2
No 21 14.0
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.11 it can be inferred that most (86%) of the respondents are using m-wallets
and remaining 14% are not using.

Chart 4.1.11Are you using m-wallets?

 26

Table 4.1.12Rate the following reason if you are not using m-wallets :

S. Problems Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Mean

No agree Agree nor disagree
disagree
F P F P F P F P F P
1 Doesn’t own a 2.51
0 0 7 4.7 0 0 6 4.0 3 2.0
smart phone
2 Needs are met 2.35
without m 0 0 14 9.3 2 1.3 3 2.0 0 0
wallets
3 Difficult to 3.12
0 0 5 3.3 8 5.3 3 2.0 0 0
use m wallets
4 Inconvenience 2.69
in completing
0 0 5 3.3 50 6 4.0 5 0 0
the online
transactions
5 Security 2.12
0 0 11 7.3 5 3.3 3 2.0 0 0
issues
6 Not aware 2.61
about m 2 1.3 5 3.3 5 3.3 3 2.0 3 2.0
wallets
7 No need 0 0 10 6.7 9 6.0 0 0 0 0 2.27
Average 2.52
Source: primary data

F Frequency
P percentage
Interpretation

Doesn’t own a smart phone

From table 4.1.12, it is interpreted that, most (4.7 %) of the respondents agree that the reason
for not using m-wallet is lack of a smart phone, 4% disagree and 2% strongly disagree that
the reason for not using m-wallet is lack of a smart phone.
 26

Needs are met without m wallets

From table 4.1.12, it is interpreted that, most (9.3 %) of the respondents agree that the Needs
are met without m wallets, 2% disagree and 1.3% neither Agree nor disagreethatNeeds are
met without m wallets.

Difficult to use m wallets

From table 4.1.12, it is interpreted that, most (5.3 %) of the respondents disagree that the
reason for not using m-wallet is Difficult to use m wallets, 3.3% agree and 2% disagree that
the reason for not using m-wallet is Difficult to use m wallets.

Inconvenience in completing the online transactions

From table 4.1.12, it is interpreted that, most (6 %) of the respondents neither Agree nor
disagree that it is Inconvenience in completing the online transactions. 5% disagree and 3.3%
agree that it is Inconvenience in completing the online transactions.

.Security issues
From table 4.1.12, it is interpreted that, most (7.3 %) of the respondents agree that they have
Security issues, 3.3% neither Agree nor disagreethat they have Security issues and 2%
disagree.

Not aware about m wallets

From table 4.1.12, it is interpreted that, most (3.3 %) of the respondents agree and neither
Agree nor disagree that they are not aware about m wallet, 2% of the respondents disagree
and strongly agree and 1.3% of the respondents strongly agree.

No need
From table 4.1.12, it is interpreted that, most (6.7 %) of the respondents agree that they don’t
need m-wallets and 6% neither Agree nor disagree.
 27

Table 4.1.13How do you rate your level of awareness about m-wallets?

How do you rate your

S. No level of awareness about Frequency Percent
m-wallets?

1
Highly Aware 111 74
2
Aware 39 26.0
3
Neither Aware nor aware 0 0
4
Unaware 0 0
5
Highly unaware 0 0
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.13 it can be inferred that most (74%) of the respondents are highly aware
about m-wallets and remaining 39% are aware.

Chart 4.1.13How do you rate your level of awareness about m-wallets?

 28

Table 4.1.14what is your source of awareness about m-wallet?

What is your source of

S. No awareness about m- Frequency Percent
wallet?

1
Referral by friends 82 54.7
2
Ads 36 24.0
3
App stores 17 11.3
4
Others 15 10.0
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.14 it can be inferred that majority (54.7%) of the respondents are through
referral by friends, 24% of the respondents are through Ads, 11.3% of the respondents are
through App stores and remaining 10% through other sources.

Chart 4.1.14 What is your source of awareness about m-wallet?

 29

Table 4.1.15How often do you use M wallet system in a month?

How often do you use M

S. No wallet system in a Frequency Percent
month?

1
Once 7 4.7
2
Twice 37 24.7
3
3-6 times 39 26.0
4
more than 6 times 67 44.6
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.15 it can be inferred that majority (44.6%) of the respondents are using more
than 6 times, 26% of the respondents are using 3-6 times, 24.7% of the respondents are using
twice a month and remaining 4.7% are using once a monththrough other sources.

Chart 4.1.15 What is your source of awareness about m-wallet?

 30

Table 4.1.16Rate your satisfaction in Use of M wallet mode

Rate your satisfaction in

S. No Frequency Percent
Use of M wallet mode

1
Highly satisfied 78 52.05
2
satisfied 72 47.95
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.16 it can be inferred that most (52.05%) of the respondents are highly satisfied
and remaining 47.95% are satisfied.

Chart 4.1.16Rate your satisfaction in Use of M wallet mode

 31

Table 4.1.17Preferred M-Wallet?

S. Problems Yes No Mean

No F P F P
1 Paytm 81 54.0 31 20.7 2.51

2 G Pay 103 68.7 9 6.0 2.35

3 PhonePe 92 61.3 20 13.3 3.12

4 Others 52 34.7 60 40.0 2.69

Average 2.52

Source: primary data

Interpretation

Paytm
From table 4.1.17 it can be inferred that most (54.0%) of the respondents are preferring
paytm and 20.7 doesn’t.

G Pay
From table 4.1.17 it can be inferred that most (68.7%) of the respondents are preferring Gpay
and 6% doesn’t.

Phone Pe
From table 4.1.17 it can be inferred that most (61.3%) of the respondents are preferring
Phonepe and 13.3% doesn’t.

Others
From table 4.1.17 it can be inferred that most (40%) of the respondents are not preferring
other wallets and 13.3% says yes.
 32

Table 4.1.18Purpose of using M-Wallet

S. Problems Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Mean

No
F P F P F P F P F P
1 Bill Payment 2.51
5 3.3 14 9.3 21 14.0 41 27.3 31 20.7
2 Fund 2.35
Transfer 10 6.7 12 8.0 30 20.0 45 30.0 15 10.0

3 Ticket 3.12
Reservation
10 6.7 12 8.0 30 20.0 45 30.0 15 10.0

4 Recharge 2.69
Mobile/DTH 12 8.0 10 6.7 20 13.3 36 24.0 34 22.7

5 Others 2.12
20 13.3 16 10.7 32 21.3 35 23.3 9 6.0
Average 2.52

Source: primary data

Interpretation

Bill Payment

From table 4.1.18, it is interpreted that, 27.3% of respondents often use m wallets for bill
payment, 20% sometimes, 10% always uses, 9.3% use rarely and 3.3% never use a m-wallet
for bill payment
Fund Transfer

From table 4.1.18, it is interpreted that, 30% of respondents often use m wallets for bill fund
transfer, 20.7% always, 14% sometimes uses, 8% use rarely and 6.7% never use a m-wallet
for fund transfer.
Ticket Reservation
From table 4.1.18, it is interpreted that, 30% of respondents often use m wallets for Ticket
Reservation, 20.7% always, 14% sometimes uses, 8% use rarely and 6.7% never use a m-
wallet for Ticket Reservation.
 33

Recharge Mobile/DTH

From table 4.1.18, it is interpreted that, 24% of respondents often use m wallets for Recharge
Mobile/DTH, 22.7% always, 13% sometimes uses, 8% never uses and 6.7% rarely use m-
wallet for Recharge Mobile/DTH.
Others
From table 4.1.18, it is interpreted that, 23% of respondents often use m wallets for other
purpose, 21.3% sometimes, 13.3% never uses, 10.7% rerely uses and 6% always uses m-
wallet for other purposes.
 34

Table 4.1.19Factors influence you to opt mobile wallets

S. Problems Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Mean

No agree Agree nor disagree
disagree
F P F P F P F P F P
1 Instant 2.51
89 59.3 22 14.7 1 .7 0 0 0 0
Payment
2 Rewards 50 33.3 41 27.3 16 10.7 5 3.3 0 0 2.35
3 Security 55 36.7 41 27.3 13 8.7 1 .7 2 1.3 3.12
4 privacy 62 41.3 35 23.3 10 6.7 5 3.3 0 0 2.69
5 Ease to use 74 49.3 26 17.3 6 4.0 2 1.3 4 2.7 2.12
6 Convenience 69 46.0 32 21.3 5 3.3 2 1.3 4 2.7 2.61
7 Trust 58 38.7 32 21.3 12 8.0 3 2.0 7 4.7 2.27
8 Time saving 75 50.0 28 18.7 0 0 2 1.3 7 4.7
9 Anywhere
anytime
transaction is 70 46.7 24 16.0 7 4.7 6 4.0 5 3.3

possible
10 Others 70 46.7 24 16.0 7 4.7 6 4.0 5 3.3
Average 2.52

Source: primary data

Interpretation

Instant Payment

From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (59.3 %) of the respondents strongly agree that
the instant payment is a reason for opting m-wallet, 14.7% agree and .7% Neither Agree nor
disagreethat instant payment is a reason for opting m-wallet.
Rewards

From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (33.3 %) of the respondents strongly agree that
rewards, 27.3% agree and 10.7% neither Agree nor disagree and 3.3% disagreethat rewards
are the reason.
 35

Security
From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (36.7 %) of the respondents strongly agree that
security, 27.3% agree and 8.7% neither Agree nor disagree, .7% disagree and 1.3% strongly
disagreethat security is the reason.
Privacy

From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (41.3 %) of the respondents strongly agree that
privacy is a reason, 23.3% agree and 6.7% neither Agree nor disagree, 3.3% disagree that
privacy is a reason.

Ease to use
From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (49.3 %) of the respondents strongly agree that
ease to use is a reason, 17.3% agree and 4% neither Agree nor disagree, 1.3% disagree and
2.7% strongly disagreethatease to use is a reason.

Convenience
From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (46 %) of the respondents strongly agree
thatConvenience is a reason, 21.3% agree and 3.3% neither Agree nor disagree, 1.3%
disagree and 2.7% strongly disagreethatConvenience is a reason.

Trust
From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (38.7 %) of the respondents strongly agree
thatTrust is a reason, 21.3% agree and 8% neither Agree nor disagree, 2% disagree and 4.7%
strongly disagreethat trust is a reason.
Time saving
From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (50 %) of the respondents strongly agree
thatTime saving is a reason, 18.7% agree and 0% neither Agree nor disagree, 1.3% disagree
and 4.7% strongly disagreethatTime saving is a reason.

Anywhere anytime transaction is possible

From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (46.7 %) of the respondents strongly agree
thatAnywhere anytime transaction is possible is a reason, 16% agree and 4.7% neither Agree
nor disagree, 4% disagree and 3.3% strongly disagreethatAnywhere anytime transaction is
possible is a reason.
 36

Others
From table 4.1.19, it is interpreted that, most (46.7 %) of the respondents strongly agree
thatthere are other reasons, 16% agree and 4.7% neither Agree nor disagree, 4% disagree and
3.3% strongly disagreethat there are other reasons.
 37

Table 4.1.20How much do you spend through m-wallet monthly

How much do you spend

S. No through m-wallet Frequency Percent
monthly

1
Below 5000 95 63.3
2
5000-10000 25 16.7
3
10000- 20000 24 16.0
4
Above 20000 6 4.0
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.20 it can be inferred that majority (63.3%) of the respondents are spending
below 5000, 16.7% of the respondents are spending an amount of 5000-10000, 16% of the
respondents are spending 10000-20000 and remaining 4% are spending above 20000 a
month.

Chart 4.1.20How much do you spend through m-wallet monthly

 38

Table 4.1.21Whether your spending increased due to usage of m-wallets

Whether your spending

S. No increased due to usage of Frequency Percent
m-wallets

1
Yes 83 55.4
2
No 32 21.3
3
Don't Know 35 23.3
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.21 it can be inferred that majority (83%) of the respondents increased their
spending, 35% of the respondents don’t know whether increased and remaining 32% has not
increased.

Chart 4.1.21Whether your spending increased due to usage of m-wallets

 39

Table 4.1.22Do you save or lose money after using m-wallets

Do you save or lose

S. No money after using m- Frequency Percent
wallets

1
I save money 88 58.7
2
I loss money 15 10.0
3
I don't know 47 31.3
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.22 it can be inferred that majority (58.7%) of the respondents saves money,
31.3% of the respondents don’t know whether saved or not increased and remaining 10% has
loss.

Chart 4.1.22Do you save or lose money after using m-wallets

 40

Table 4.1.23Do you prefer for going back to traditional payment systems?

Do you prefer for going

S. No back to traditional Frequency Percent
payment systems?

1
Yes 26 17.3
2
No 124 82.7
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.23 it can be inferred that majority (82.7%) of the respondents not preferring to
going back to traditional payment system and remaining 17.3% has prefer.

Chart 4.1.23Do you prefer for going back to traditional payment systems?
 41

Table 4.1.24Whether you faced any security issues at the time of payment

Whether you faced any

S. No security issues at the time Frequency Percent
of payment

1
Yes 43 28.7
2
No 107 71.3
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.24 it can be inferred that majority (71.3%) of the respondents doesn’t faced
any security issues and remaining 28.7% has faced security issues.

Chart 4.1.24Whether you faced any security issues at the time of payment
 42

Table 4.1.25Which m-wallet app will you suggest to others

Which m-wallet app will

S. No Frequency Percent
you suggest to others

1
Paytm 11 7.3
2
Gpay 94 62.7
3
PhonePe 44 29.3
4
Others 1 .7
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.25 it can be inferred that majority (62.7%) of the respondents will suggest
Gpay, 29.3% of the respondents will suggest Phonepe, 7.3% of the respondents will suggest
paytmand remaining .7% will suggest other wallets.

Chart 4.1.25Which m-wallet app will you suggest to others

 43

Table 4.1.26Will you use the wallet apps issued by bank

Will you use the wallet

S. No Frequency Percent
apps issued by bank

1
Yes 137 91.3
2
No 13 8.7
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.26 it can be inferred that majority (91.3%) of the respondents will use wallets
issued by bank and remaining 8.7% will not use wallets issued by bank.

Chart 4.1.26Will you use the wallet apps issued by bank

 44

Table 4.1.27Will you suggest the m-wallet to more friends

Will you suggest the m-

S. No Frequency Percent
wallet to more friends

1
Yes 149 99.3
2
No 1 .7
Total 150 100

Source: primary data

Interpretation

From table 4.1.27 it can be inferred that majority (99.3%) of the respondents will suggest to
friends and remaining 0.7% will not suggest to friends.

Chart 4.1.27Will you suggest the m-wallet to more friends

 45

4.2ANOVA

4.2.1Relationship between Age and factors that influence to opt a mobile wallet

Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Factors influence you to Between Groups .676 4 .169 .896 .469
opt mobile wallets Within Groups 20.181 107 .189
(instant payment) Total 20.857 111
Factors influence you to Between Groups 2.166 4 .541 .736 .569
opt mobile wallets Within Groups 78.691 107 .735
(rewards) Total 80.857 111
Factors influence you to Between Groups 4.352 4 1.088 1.546 .194
opt mobile wallets Within Groups 75.326 107 .704
(security) Total 79.679 111
Factors influence you to Between Groups 6.054 4 1.514 2.307 .063
opt mobile wallets Within Groups 70.196 107 .656
(privacy) Total 76.250 111
Factors influence you to Between Groups 8.443 4 2.111 2.471 .049
opt mobile wallets (ease Within Groups 91.414 107 .854
to use) Total 99.857 111
Factors influence you to Between Groups 12.576 4 3.144 3.965 .005
opt mobile wallets Within Groups 84.852 107 .793
(convenience) Total 97.429 111
Between Groups 20.548 4 5.137 4.534 .002
Factors influence you to
Within Groups 121.229 107 1.133
opt mobile wallets (trust)
Total 141.777 111
Factors influence you to Between Groups 4.806 4 1.202 1.082 .369
opt mobile wallets (time Within Groups 118.872 107 1.111
saving) Total 123.679 111
Factors influence you to Between Groups 15.346 4 3.836 3.447 .011
opt mobile wallets Within Groups 119.083 107 1.113
(anywhere anytime
Total 134.429 111
transaction is possible)
Factors influence you to Between Groups 8.606 4 2.151 1.677 .161
opt mobile wallets Within Groups 137.251 107 1.283
(others) Total 145.857 111
 46

Interpretation
Instant payment

P value is 0.469 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there
is no significant difference in the factor instant payment that influencesto opt a mobile wallet
among different age group of respondents.

Rewards

P value is 0.569 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there
is no significant difference in the factor rewards that influencesto opt a mobile wallet among
different age group of respondents..

Security

P value is 0.194 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there
is no significant difference in the factor security that influencesto opt a mobile wallet among
different age group of respondents.

Privacy

P value is 0.063 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there
is no significant difference in the factor privacy that influencesto opt a mobile wallet among
different age group of respondents.

Ease to use

P value is 0.049 which is less than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore there is a
significant difference in the factor Ease to use that influencesto opt a mobile wallet among
different age group of respondents.

Convenience

P value is 0.005 which is less than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore there is a
significant difference in the factor convenience that influencesto opt a mobile wallet among
different age group of respondents.
 47

Trust

P value is 0.002 which is less than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore there is a
significant difference in the factor trust that influencesto opt a mobile wallet among different
age group of respondents.

Time saving

P value is 0.369 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there
is no significant difference in the factor time saving that influencesto opt a mobile wallet
among different age group of respondents.

Anywhere anytime transaction is possible

P value is 0.011 which is less than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore there is a
significant difference in the factor Anywhere anytime transaction is possible that influencesto
opt a mobile wallet among different age group of respondents.

Others

P value is 0.161 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there
is no significant difference in the factor others that influencesto opt a mobile wallet among
different age group of respondents.
 48

4.3 Chi-square

Null hypothesis h01:There is no significant relationship betweenage and preference of Digital

banking

Table 4.3.1 Relationship between age and preference of Digital banking

Age * Do you prefer digital banking Crosstabulation
Do you prefer digital banking Total
Yes No
Count 18 0 18
Expected
21-23 16.6 1.4 18.0
Count
% within Age 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 92 5 97
Expected
24-26 89.2 7.8 97.0
Count
% within Age 94.8% 5.2% 100.0%
Count 18 0 18
Expected
Age 27-30 16.6 1.4 18.0
Count
% within Age 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 8 4 12
Above Expected
11.0 1.0 12.0
31 Count
% within Age 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Count 2 3 5
Expected
6 4.6 .4 5.0
Count
% within Age 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%
Count 138 12 150
Expected
Total 138.0 12.0 150.0
Count
% within Age 92.0% 8.0% 100.0%
 49

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 33.031a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 22.234 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 21.876 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 150

Interpretation
P value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is rejected. Hence there is a
significant relationship between gender and preference of digital banking.
 50

Null hypothesis h02: There is no significant relationship between age and awareness about
m-wallet

Table 4.3.2 Relationship between age and awareness about m-wallet

Age * Are you aware about m-wallets? Crosstabulation

Are you aware about m- Total
wallets?
Yes No
Count 15 3 18
Expected
21-23 16.0 2.0 18.0
Count
% within Age 83.3% 16.7% 100.0%
Count 84 13 97
Expected
24-26 86.0 11.0 97.0
Count
% within Age 86.6% 13.4% 100.0%
Count 17 1 18
Expected
Age 27-30 16.0 2.0 18.0
Count
% within Age 94.4% 5.6% 100.0%
Count 12 0 12
Above Expected
10.6 1.4 12.0
31 Count
% within Age 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 5 0 5
Expected
6 4.4 .6 5.0
Count
% within Age 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 133 17 150
Expected
Total 133.0 17.0 150.0
Count
% within Age 88.7% 11.3% 100.0%
 51

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.694a 4 .449
Likelihood Ratio 5.656 4 .226
Linear-by-Linear
3.428 1 .064
Association
N of Valid Cases 150

Interpretation
P value is 0.449 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Hence there is
no significant relationship between gender and awareness of m-wallet
 52

Null hypothesis h02: There is no significant relationship between gender and Preferred M
Wallet

Table 4.3.3 Relationship between age and awareness about m-wallet

Crosstab
Preferred M- Total
Wallet?(others)
yes no
Count 28 36 64
Expected
29.7 34.3 64.0
Male Count
% within
43.8% 56.2% 100.0%
Gender
Gender
Count 24 24 48
Expected
22.3 25.7 48.0
Female Count
% within
50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Gender
Count 52 60 112
Expected
52.0 60.0 112.0
Total Count
% within
46.4% 53.6% 100.0%
Gender

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig.
(2-sided) sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .431a 1 .512
Continuity Correctionb .216 1 .642
Likelihood Ratio .431 1 .512
Fisher's Exact Test .568 .321
Linear-by-Linear
.427 1 .514
Association
N of Valid Cases 112

Interpretation
P value is 0.512 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Hence there is
no significant relationship between gender and gender and Preferred M-Wallet.
 53

Null hypothesis h02: There is no significant relationship between Gender and how much
spending monthly

Table 4.3.4 relationship between Gender and how much spending monthly

Gender * How much do you spend through m-wallet monthly Crosstabulation

How much do you spend through m-wallet monthly Total
Below 5000-10000 10000- 20000 Above
5000 20000
Count 31 12 15 6 64
Expected Count 32.6 14.3 13.7 3.4 64.0
Male
% within
48.4% 18.8% 23.4% 9.4% 100.0%
Gender
Gender
Count 26 13 9 0 48
Expected Count 24.4 10.7 10.3 2.6 48.0
Female
% within
54.2% 27.1% 18.8% 0.0% 100.0%
Gender
Count 57 25 24 6 112
Expected Count 57.0 25.0 24.0 6.0 112.0
Total
% within
50.9% 22.3% 21.4% 5.4% 100.0%
Gender

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.811a 3 .121
Likelihood Ratio 8.019 3 .046
Linear-by-Linear
2.563 1 .109
Association
N of Valid Cases 112

Interpretation

P value is 0.121 which is greater than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Hence there is
no significant relationship between between Gender and how much spending monthly.
 54

Null hypothesis h02: There is no significant relationship between Gender and saving of
money

Table 4.3.5relationship between Gender and saving of money

Gender * Do you save or lose money after using m-wallets Crosstabulation

Do you save or lose money after using m- Total
wallets
I save money I loss money I don't know
Count 40 9 15 64
Expected
28.6 8.6 26.9 64.0
Male Count
% within
62.5% 14.1% 23.4% 100.0%
Gender
Gender
Count 10 6 32 48
Expected
21.4 6.4 20.1 48.0
Female Count
% within
20.8% 12.5% 66.7% 100.0%
Gender
Count 50 15 47 112
Expected
50.0 15.0 47.0 112.0
Total Count
% within
44.6% 13.4% 42.0% 100.0%
Gender

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 22.931a 2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 23.876 2 .000
Linear-by-Linear
22.641 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 112

Interpretation
P value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05.Hence null hypothesis is accepted. Hence there is a
significant relationship between between Gender and saving of money.
 55

4.4Correlation

Null Hypothesis H01:There is no significant relationship between the age and purpose of
using m-wallet for bill payment.

4.4.1Correlationsbetween the age and purpose of using m-wallet

for bill payment.

Age Purpose of
using M-
Wallet(Bill
payment)
Pearson
1 -.135
Correlation
Age
Sig. (2-tailed) .155
N 150 112
Pearson
-.135 1
Purpose of using M- Correlation
Wallet(Bill payment) Sig. (2-tailed) .155
N 112 112
Interpretation
The significance value is0.155 which is greater than 0.05.Therefore H0 is accepted. Hence
there is no significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for bill
payment.
Pearson correlation value is -0.135.This shows a weak negative correlation between the two
variables, age and purpose of using m wallet for bill payment.
 56

Null Hypothesis H02:There is no significant relationship between the age and purpose of
using m-wallet for fund transfer.
4.4.2 Correlationsbetween the age and purpose of using m-wallet
for fund transfer.

Age Purpose of
using M-
Wallet(fund
transfer)
Pearson
1 -.164
Correlation
Age
Sig. (2-tailed) .084
N 150 112
Pearson
-.164 1
Purpose of using M- Correlation
Wallet(fund transfer) Sig. (2-tailed) .084
N 112 112

Interpretation
The significance value is0.084 which is greater than 0.05.Therefore H0 is accepted. Hence
there is no significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for fund
transfer.
Pearson correlation value is -0.164.This shows a weak negative correlation between the two
variables, age and purpose of using m wallet for fund transfer.
 57

Null Hypothesis H03:There is no significant relationship between the age and purpose of
using m-wallet for ticket reservation.

4.4.3 Correlationsbetween the age and purpose of using m-wallet

for ticket reservation.

Age Purpose of
using M-
Wallet(ticket
reservation)
Pearson
1 -.164
Correlation
Age
Sig. (2-tailed) .084
N 150 112
Pearson
Purpose of using M- -.164 1
Correlation
Wallet(ticket
Sig. (2-tailed) .084
reservation)
N 112 112

Interpretation
The significance value is0.084 which is greater than 0.05.Therefore H0 is accepted. Hence
there is no significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for ticket
reservation.
Pearson correlation value is -0.164.This shows a weak negative correlation between the two
variables, age and purpose of using m wallet for bill payment.
 58

Null Hypothesis H04:There is no significant relationship between the age and purpose of
using m-wallet for mobile recharge/DTH.
4.4.4 Correlationsbetween the age and purpose of using m-wallet
for mobile recharge/DTH.

Age Purpose of
using M-
Wallet(recha
rge
mobile/DTH)
Pearson
1 -.321**
Correlation
Age
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 150 112
Pearson
Purpose of using M- -.321** 1
Correlation
Wallet(recharge
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
mobile/DTH)
N 112 112
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation
The significance value is0.001 which is less than 0.05.Therefore H 0 is rejected. Hence there is
significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for bill mobile
recharge/DTH.
Pearson correlation value is -0.321.This shows a weak negative correlation between the two
variables, age and purpose of using m wallet for mobile recharge/DTH.
 59

Null Hypothesis H05:There is no significant relationship between the age and purpose of
using m-wallet for others.
4.4.5 Correlationsbetween the age and purpose of using m-wallet
for others.

Age Purpose of
using M-
Wallet(other)
Pearson
1 -.233*
Correlation
Age
Sig. (2-tailed) .013
N 150 112
Pearson
-.233* 1
Purpose of using M- Correlation
Wallet(other) Sig. (2-tailed) .013
N 112 112
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation
The significance value is0.013 which is greater than 0.05.Therefore H0 is rejected. Hence
there is significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for others.
Pearson correlation value is -0.233.This shows a weak negative correlation between the two
variables, age and purpose of using m wallet for bill payment for others.
 60

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Findings
5.1.1 Demographic profile of respondents

 majority (52%) of the respondents are Male

 majority (64.7%) of the respondents belong to the age group of 24-26 years,
 majority (82.7%) of the respondents are Single
 most (43.3%) of the respondents are both Post Graduates and graduates,
 most (52.7%) of the respondents are students
 majority (54.7%) of the respondents annual income are Below Rs. 2,00,000
5.1.2 Simple frequency analysis

 Most (90%) of the respondents uses smart phones for completing a monetary
transaction.
 most (92%) of the respondents prefer dgital banking and remaining
 most (88.7%) of the respondents are aware about m-wallets and remaining
 (86%) of the respondents are using m-wallets
 most (4.7 %) of the respondents agree that the reason for not using m-wallet is lack of
a smart phone
 most (74%) of the respondents are highly aware about m-wallets
 majority (54.7%) of the respondents are through referral by friends
 that majority (44.6%) of the respondents are using more than 6 times
 most (52.05%) of the respondents are highly satisfied
 most (54.0%) of the respondents are preferring paytm
 majority (63.3%) of the respondents are spending below 5000
 majority (83%) of the respondents increased their spending,
 majority (58.7%) of the respondents saves money
 majority (82.7%) of the respondents not preferring to going back to traditional
payment system
 majority (71.3%) of the respondents doesn’t faced any security issues
 majority (62.7%) of the respondents will suggest Gpay
 61

 majority (91.3%) of the respondents will use wallets issued by bank

 majority (99.3%) of the respondents will suggest to friends

Other Findings

5.1.3 ANOVA

 there is no significant difference in the factor instant payment that influences to opt a
mobile wallet among different age group of respondents.
 there is no significant difference in the factor rewards that influences to opt a mobile
wallet among different age group of respondents.
 there is no significant difference in the factor security that influences to opt a mobile
wallet among different age group of respondents.
 there is no significant difference in the factor privacy that influences to opt a mobile
wallet among different age group of respondents.
 there is a significant difference in the factor Ease to use that influences to opt a mobile
wallet among different age group of respondents.
 there is a significant difference in the factor convenience that influences to opt a
mobile wallet among different age group of respondents.
 there is a significant difference in the factor trust that influences to opt a mobile wallet
among different age group of respondents.
 there is no significant difference in the factor time saving that influences to opt a
mobile wallet among different age group of respondents.
 there is a significant difference in the factor Anywhere anytime transaction is possible
that influences to opt a mobile wallet among different age group of respondents.
 there is no significant difference in the factor others that influences to opt a mobile
wallet among different age group of respondents.

5.1.4 Chi-square

 there is a significant relationship between gender and preference of digital banking.

 there is no significant relationship between gender and awareness of m-wallet
 there is no significant relationship between gender and gender and Preferred M-
Wallet.
 there is no significant relationship between between Gender and how much spending
monthly.
 62

 there is a significant relationship between between Gender and saving of money

5.1.5 CORRELATION

 There is no significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for
bill payment.
 there is no significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for
fund transfer.
 there is no significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for
ticket reservation.
 there is significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for bill
mobile recharge/DTH.
 there is significant correlation between the age and purpose of using m wallet for
others.

5.2 Suggestions

Based on the findings the following suggestions are made:

 The features of the m wallets should be made in a way that it can be accessible to all
easily.
 The security is the biggest concern among the consumers and can be considered as a
key factor .so it should be improved
 The transactions failures creates a great fear to the customers that they will lose
money so the connectivity issues should be completely resolved
 Majority of the peoples are using m wallets more than 6 times so rewards should be
provided to the customers for the better usage.
 When the transaction has failed proper messages should be display to avoid the panic
situation among customers and the facility to credit the amount within minutes should
be facilitated

 Most of the respondents agree that E-Payment transaction costs are hidden from users
and sometimes the payments get blocked and no confirmation is sent are the main
challenges faced by digital transaction users. So, there need an improvement in those
areas of digital transaction system.
 63

5.3 Conclusion
After discussing many aspects, it is analyzed that youngsters are becoming more
aware and responsible towards M-wallets and are contributing in some or the other way
towards growth and success of making India digital. In spite of many security issues, people
are inclined towards M-wallets because of its convenience, ease of use, quick service and
availability.
 64

Bibliography
Dr.G.Vincent. (2016). e-wallet. European Journal of Business and Management , 2222-2839.
Dr.PankajTiwari, D. R. (2017). demonitization in India an era of digital payment. Journal
ofscience andtechnology policy management , vol 10 issue 1.
Glenn Ergeerts, D. S. (2012). m-wallet. IJRS , 50--62.
Kumar, S. (2014). study on paytm transaction. Indian journal of management science , 65-95.
MajidTaghiloo. (2010). digital wallets. IJRS .
Neeharika, P. (2014). study on moble wallets. IJRS .
Neil Daswani, D. B.-M. (1998). swaperoo. Andreas Paepcke Stanford University .
NgocDoan. (2014). consumer adoption in Mobile wallet. IJRS , 65-79.
NitikaRai, A. A. (2012). Emerging Trends in Engineering & Technology . International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) , 2248-9622 .
poonam painuly, s. (2016). Mobile wallet :An upcoming mode of business transaction.
international journal of management and social science , 2321-1784.
Rajesh Krishna Balan, N. R. (2006). Digital Wallet: Requirements and Challenges .
Singapore Management University , 205-505.
Rathore, D. S. (2016). adoption of digital wallet by consumers. BVIMSR’s Journal of
Management Research , 69-75.
SanazZarrinKafsh. (2015). “Developing consumer Adoption Model on the mobile wallet in
Canada. IJRS , 50-62.
ShwetaRathore, D. H. (2016). smartphone has become an essential part of daily life. IJRT ,
50-62.
Upadhyaya, A. (2012). electronic commerce and E-wallet. International Journal of Recent
Research and Review , 2277 – 8322.
 65

Appendix

Name

1. Age(in years)

(a) 18-20 (b)21-23 (c)24-26 (d)27-30 (e) Above 31

2. Gender
a) Male b) Female c) Transgender

3. Marital status
a) Single b) married c) Others
4. Educational qualification
a) Schooling b) diploma c) UG d) PG e) Ph.D. e) Others
5. Occupation
a) Business b) Employee c) Self Employed d) students e) Others

6. Family annual income

a) Below 200000 b) 200000-400000 c)400001-500000 d) Above 500000
7. Nationality
a) Indian b) Other
8. Do you use your smart phone for completing a monetary
transaction? (online payments)
a) Yes b) No
9. Do you prefer digital banking:
a) Yes b) No
10.Are you aware about m-wallets?
a) Hearing about it for the first time
b) Heard about it and used it
c) Heard about it but never used it

If you are aware about m wallet, please proceed further

 66

11.How do you rate your level of awareness about m-wallets?

a) Highly Aware
b) Aware
c) Neither Aware nor aware
d) Unaware
e) Highly unaware
12.What is your source of awareness about m-wallet?
a) Referral by friends
b) Ads
c) App stores
d) Others(please specify)
13.Preferred M-Wallet

YES NO

Paytm

G Pay

PhonePe

Others

14. Rate the following reason if you are not using m-wallets

Reasons Strongl Ag Neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly

y Agree ree disagree Disagree

Doesn’t own a smart phone

Needs are met without m

wallets
Difficult to use m wallets

Inconvenience in completing
the online transactions
Security issues
 67

Not aware about m wallets

No need

15.Purpose of using M-Wallet

Source Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

Bill Payment

Fund Transfer

Ticket Reservation

Recharge Mobile/DTH

Others

16.Factors influence you to opt mobile wallets, please select the

appropriate

Reasons Strongly Agree Neither Agree Disagre Strongly

Agree nor disagree e Disagree

Instant Payment

Rewards

Security

privacy

Ease to use

Convenience

Trust

Time saving

Anywhere anytime
transaction is possible
Others
 68

17.How often do you use M wallet system in a month?

(a)Once (b) Twice (c) 3-6 times (d) more than 6 times

18.Rate your satisfaction in Use of M wallet mode

(a)Highly satisfied (b) satisfied (c) Either satisfied not dissatisfied

(d) Dissatisfied (e) highly dissatisfied

19. How much do you spend through m-wallet monthly

a) Below 5000 b) 5000-10000 c) 10000- 20000 d) Above 20000
20.Whether your spending increased due to usage of m-wallets
a) Yes b) No c) don’t know
21.Do you save or lose money after using m-wallets
a) I save money b) I lose money c) I don’t know
22.Do you prefer for going back to traditional payment systems?
a)Yes b) No
23.Whether you faced any security issues at the time of payment
a)Yes b) No
24.Which m-wallet app will you suggest to others
a) Paytm (b) G Pay (c) PhonePe (d) Others
25.Will you use the wallet apps issued by bank
a) Yes b) No
26.If no, mention the reason
27.Will you suggest the m-wallet to more friends
a) Yes b)No
28.Draft suggestions regarding m-wallet