1. INTRODUCTION:

Cash is the major monetary variable that most readily available and widely accepted in form of payment in India. Indian payment system has been criticized for being cash-intensive in India (The Fletcher School, 2014). According to one estimate, the value of notes and coins in circulation as a percentage of GDP in India is 12.04%, compared to 3.93% in Brazil, 5.32% in Mexico and 3.72% is South Africa (International Monetary Fund, 2013). However, the process of digitization of payments in India has been converted into a catch up effect (the property whereby countries that start off poor tend to grow more rapidly than countries that start off rich). According to a recent report launched by Google and BCG - Digital Payments 2020 - India ranks #2 in the world with over I billion mobile subscriptions and projected to be $500 billion digital payment industry by 2020, contributing 15% to India's GDP. Further, it has been projected that non cash transactions would exceed cash transactions by 2023.

Digital payment or e-payment define as the process to the transfer of electronic value of payment from one to another one person by using web-based user interfaces (Kim et aI. 2010, Weir et al. 2006, Lim,2008). The total value of global retail payments transactions was estimated at USD 16 trillion in 2015 and is estimated to increase to USJ) 21 trillion by 2020.The Reserve Bank of India which is the central bank of the country has envisioned building best of class payment and settlement system for a 'less-cash' India to support digital India movement, The dominate facilities like Electronic Clearing Services (ECS), National Electronic Fund Transfer (NEFT) and Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) taken initiation in e-payment services by RBI.

The telecom businesses initiatives also fuelled mounting growth in e-commerce industry. There is wide emerging trends in Private and Public sector banks and other companies such as paytm, amazon, Rupay also emerged this area widely. According to a earlier study, ASSOCHAM (Mody, 2016) concluded that E-commerce market in India might reach $38 billion mark in 2016, a 67% increase over the $23 billion revenues in 2015¹.

In this picture, it shows that it needs to study factors affecting adoption of e-payment system, as User's reception is a indispensable factor determining the success or failure of any new technology. Daniand Krishna (2001, p. 91) allege: "one of the foremost bottlenecks in the growth of e-commerce is short of appropriate payment instrument and corresponding Electronic Payment System." Previous research suggests factors related deficient in trust, security, and perceived risk are deemed to be significant to provide customers with the confidence to switch to an online payment system. Furthermore, customers will avoid engaging in online manners if these rudiments are not facilitated in the payment systems, as a result causing merchants to go down on potential online sales (Abrazhevich, 2004). Still a major anxiety for users is the risk of losing personal information and credit care details going to the hands of hackers. A major factor in the fruition of electronic commerce is markets Customers' perceptions of the safekeeping of E-payment systems. It is the central aspects for e-payment service providers to develop systems that are deemed -secure and trustworthy².

In consequence, this studies the breathing literature on conviction and safekeeping in e-payment province, and recognizes factors affecting consumer trust and perceive security. Supplementary, to describe the determinants of customer’s adoption of e payment proposes a conceptual model. In this model, the relationships are tested based on data composed through survey and outcomes are analyzed and discussed. The results indicates vital insights for trends of the e-payment system as to what factors need keep in priority of system in accordance of enlarge encouraging client perceptions towards e-payment systems.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Recent scenario, a major component of business operations for many companies become E-commerce; beside e-payment befall one of the most critical issues for successful business and financial services. To boost adoption rate

1. 1 Mody B. (2016), Scenario of Digital Payments in India 2016: Trends and Future, retrieved -http://www.iamwire.com/20 16/03/scenario -digital-payments- India- 20 16-trends- future/133921.

2. 2Abrazhevich, D. (2004), "Electronic payment systems: a user-centered perspective and interaction design", PhD thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven.

of EPS, the factors that influence consumer adoption should be healthier managed (Montaz.e and Qahri-Sarerni, 2015).Linck et al. (2006) focused on the security measures influencing customers’ participation in a mobile payment procedure, such as technical protections, transaction procedures, and security statements. As per this review, possible categorize the influencing factors to consumers' perceptions of safekeeping and trust in the draw on of EPS into three areas: security statement, transaction procedures; and technical protections. These three factors are in a straight line conscientious determining whether or not a consumer would consider an e-payment system to be secure and whether not a consumer would have trust in EPS.

2.1 Technical protections in EPS:

Technical protections relegate to precise and technical mechanisms to protect consumers' transaction security. Technical protections, including privacy, reliability, and constancy affects perceived safekeeping and perceived conviction (Chellappaand Pavlou, 2002).The technical infrastructure supporting EPS must be confrontation to security attacks. Technical protections must be considered to reduce security risk to boost trust. Consumers' perceived safekeeping and perceived conviction in EPS can be enhanced when they have guarantee of solitude reliability, and stability. (Romdhane 2005, Hwang et al. -2007). Additionally, as per Hanzaee and Alinejad (2012) to improve consumers perceived consumers ,technical protections is one of the prime factors. Accordingly, hypothesize that technical protections are likely to put forth a positive impact on consumers' perceptions of both safekeeping and conviction³.

2.2 Transaction procedures in EPS:

EPS procedures are one of the stipulations in gratifying consumers' security prime requirements. Laudon and Traver (2001) argue that enlightened procedures and process interactions should be developed in EPS deal with security requirements. Auxiliary, well-designed processes abolish qualms in the mind consumers' which can pilot to enlarged use of EPS (Lawrence et al. 2002). As per Tsiakis and Sthephanides (2005) and Hwanget al. (2007) three procedures are deployed during the transaction process: 1)Authenenticating each participant prior to the transaction; (2) providing consumers with several separate steps toward the completion of the e-payment transaction; and (3) sending an acknowledgement after each transaction assure consumers that the e-payment system has successfully executed the task⁴. An online system with good design provides consumers with more convenience, reliability, and faster responses, which enhances system usage (Hausman and Siekpe, 2009). Also, as per Hanzaee and Alinejad(2012)transaction procedures is one of the significant factors for improving cosumers' perceived security. We hypothesize that transaction procedures exert a positive effect on both received security and perceived trust in EPS⁵.

3Romdhane, C. (2005). Security implications of electronic commerce: a survey of consumers and businesses. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 9(5), 372-382.

4Lawrence, E., Newton, S., Corbitt, B., Braithwaite, R, and Parker, C. Technology of Internet Business, John Wiley and Sons Australia Publishing, 2002.

5Hanzaee, K. H., and Alinejad, S. (2012). An investigation about customers perceptions of security and e-payment systems among Iranian online consumers. Journal of Basic and Applied ScientificResearch,2(2), 1575-158

Security statements in EPS:

The Security Council statements define how the information endows with consumers in association with EPS, operation and storage. Statements of security features, the statements on data protection and privacy, security and political statements provides the necessary information for clients to trim down the anxiety and build a solution. Informing and comforting of consumers about the safety of their payment options, positively impacts on consumers' perceptions of security and confidence in the EPS (Lim, 2008).

Trust:

The EU threats to the security of the mass media or interpersonal network could undermine confidence in EPS and use people, falling back interpersonal trust which arises in connection with the EPS, clients are afraid of high risk in the adoption of web for financial transactions (Aladwani, 2001)⁶. Within the EU, trust is defined as "the willingness to vulnerable to the actions of another State Party, based on expectations that others will perform certain actions that are important for the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other side" (Mayer et al., 1995). The Trust is a set of beliefs, the consumer, some characteristics of the supplier, as well as the possible conduct by the supplier in the future (ganesan, 1994; coulter and coulter, 2002).

The EC security threats on the part of the mass media or interpersonal network could undermine confidence in EPS and use people, falling back interpersonal trust which arises in connection with the EPS, clients are afraid of high risk in the adoption of web for financial transactions (Aladwani, 2001). Within the EU, trust is defined as "the willingness to vulnerable to the actions of another State Party, based on expectations that others will perform certain actions that are important for the trust or, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other side" (Mayer et al., 1995). The Trust is a set of beliefs, the consumer, some characteristics of the supplier, as well as the possible conduct by the supplier in the future (ganesan, 1994; coulter and coulter, 2002).

Security:

One of the major concerns with regard to the e-payments is noted to be security. It is agreed that online sales are not as safe as conventional sales; people are suspicious since there is no human factor involved in the sale and it is done in a virtual setting (Whitely, 2000)⁷.This is because money and information are exchanged online without any direct engagement with the recipients. Since personal and financial information can be intercepted and used for fraudulent purposes, online investing MRI greater security concerns than conventional trading; users need a sense of security when conducting financial transactions, and it is still one of the major barriers to e-commerce growth (Jarvenpaa et aI., 1999; Geffen, 2000). Security is a set of procedures, mechanisms, and computer programs for authenticating the source of information and guaranteeing the process (Tsiaris and Sthephanides (2005). The existing literature recognizes the security concerns of users and the effect they have on the adoption of electronic payment systems (Kurnia and Benjamin, 2007).A key factor for the success of the EPS is security, a requirement that is becoming even more crucial in the current environment (Herzberg, 2003;Strobom et al. 2004;Peha and Kharnitov 2004; cottlemretal.2007). According to Efraim, Michael and Jae (2006), the security requirements ofE- commerce can be categorized as authentication of the partner, confidentiality of the transactions data, integrity of the transaction data, and reliability of the E-commerce system.

⁶Aladwani, A. M. (2001). Online banking: a field study of drivers, development challenges, and expectations. International Journal of Information Management, 21(3), 213-225.

7Whiteley, D. (2000). E-commerce: strategy, technologies and applications. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The main objective of our study was to examine the effects of perceived security and confidence in the use of electronic payment services, which, again, under the influence of technical protection measures, procedures, operations and security. To test the proposed model, firstly, we develop a questionnaire that captures consumers' perceptions of security and trust in electronic payment system. Measures of technical protection, procedures, operations and security statements were adapted from previous studies (Chellappa and pavlou, 2002; Kim et al. 2010; 42 et al. 2006)⁸. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: the first part of the captured by the perception of the electronic payment system; in the second part of the emphasis was placed on the use of electronic payment system and the third was for demographic data.

Data for the study were collected from respondents in the age group of 15 to 40 years, using convenient sampling. The questionnaire was distributed to 600 respondents. The data were collected through email, personal visits and Google. In total, 500 questionnaires were collected. And finally, 443 questionnaires were reviewed and used for the empirical analysis (a response rate of 40.5%) data were analyzed using SPSS and Amos to test the proposed model. Table 1 represents the profile.

3.1 Reliability:

To determine Reliability of the constructs used in the study, Cronbach's alpha, is used. Nunnally (1978) suggests that a reliability score or alpha that is 0.70 or above is sufficient. As shown in Table 2, the reliability scores of all the constructs were found to exceed this threshold. All construct demonstration good levels of reliability.

1. ⁸Chellappa, R. K., &Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Perceived information security, financial liability and con SlIl1Je:"trust in electronic-commerce transactions. Logistics Information Management, 15(5/6), 358-368.

Table: 1 Sample Profile

		Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	223	50.6
Gender	Female	220	49.4
Education level	undergraduate	14	3.3.
	Graduate	277	62.6
	Post - Graduate	152	34.2
Employment status	Self employed	27	6.2
	service	66	14.8
	unemployed	13	2.9
	student	337	76.1
	total	443	100

Source: SPSS output

Table: 2 Reliability Statistics

	Reliability Statistics
	Cronbach's Alpha	N of Items
Technical Protection.	0.701	5
Transaction Procedures	0.719	3
Security Statement	0.753	3
Perceived Security	0.762	3
Trust	0.803	4
EPS Use	0.812	3

Source: SPSS output

4. ANALYSIS:

For test of offered model, a structural equation of the models (SEM) is applied. SEM - it statistical method of simulation they are applied widely in behavioural sciences which represents combination the principles of confirmatory factorials analysis, in order to explain interrelation amongst a different variables it is considered in research. The model fit is evaluated with the aid of criterion statistics, such, as CMINIDF (attitude chi-square value to his degrees of freedom), RMSEA (Root-mean-square approximation errors), GFI, AGFI (adjusted in view of criterion index) CFI (comparative you will establish index), NFI (Rationed you will establish index). Offered model was tested with the aid of Amos.

Table 3: Model Fit Indices

Index	Value	Interpretation
CMINIDF	2.104	Good fit (should be less than 3)
GFI (Goodness of Fit Index)	0.695	Not a good fit (should be greater than 0.90)
AGFI (Adjusted GFI)	0.894	Good fit (should be greater than 0.80)
NFI (Nonned Fit Index)	0.913	Not a good fit (should be greater than 0.90)
IFI (Incremental Fit Index)	0.918	Good fit (should be greater than 0.90)
CFI (Comparative Fit Index)	0.91	Good fit (should be greater than 0.90)
RMSEA (Room Mean Square Error Approximation)	0.067	Good fit (should be less than 0.08)

(Source: Amos output)

To test the proposed relationship among the variables, regression weights should be analyzed. Table 4 shows the Amos output and on the relationship. As shown in table 4, the implications of technical protection measures (B = .511, t = 4.921, P < .01) and the transaction (B = .544, t = 4,345, P < .01) and security (B = .169, t = 1,722, p < .1) the consumer is perceived security are significant. In addition, the statements of the Security Council significantly affect the confidence of the ((B = .284, t = 2,307, P < .05), but also the technical protection and operating procedures that do not have a significant impact on trust in EPS. The results supported the link between the alleged security and confidence as the hypothetical ((B = .862, t = 2,461, P < .05), as well as the relationship between the trust and the use of electronic payment system ((B = .504,'t = 3,743, P < .01). Nevertheless, the perceived do not have substantial direct effect on the electronic payment system.

Table 4: Relationship among variables

Hypothesized Relationship	Estimate	S.E.	C.R	P
Technical protections --> Perceived security	0.511	0.104	4.921	***
Transaction procedures--> Perceived security	0.544	0.125	4.345	***
Security statements-> Perceived security	0.169	0.098	1.722	0.021
Perceived security --> Trust	0.862	0.35	2.461	0.891
Technical protections --> Trust	-0.212	0.203	-1.046	0.296
Transaction procedures-> Trust	-0.03	0.222	-0.136	0.891
Security statements-> Trust	0.284	0.123	2.307	0.021
Trust in EPS -->EPS use	0.504	0.135	3.743	***
Perceived Security --> EPS use	0.112	0.127	0.878	0.38
* - p<.OI , - p < .05, * - P <.1

Source: AMOS output

To check, indirect effect of Perceived Security on E-payment System, Direct effects, indirect effects and Total effects of Trust and Perceived Security on EPS Use are analyzed. As shown in Table 5, Perceived Security has indirect effect on Use of EPS (.465) and it has direct effect of .585 on Use of E-payment System. Whereas, Trust has direct effect on Use and Perceived Security has direct effect on Trust as shown above. The table shows standardized direct, indirect and total effects.

Table 5: Direct, Indirect and Total Effects

		Perceived Security	Trust
use	Direct	0.11	0.565
	indirect	0.475	0
	total	0.585	0.565
Trust	direct	0.823	0
	indirect	0	0
	total	0.823	0

Source: AMOS output

Summary of our result for each hypothesis in the research model are shown in the Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Output Diagram

Shows direct effects

Shows indirect effects

5. CONCLUSION:

Findings of SEM show that Technical Protections, Transaction Procedures and Security Statements are significant factors for improving consumers' perceived security for E-payment system. Further, Consumers' perceived security is positively related to consumers' Trust. And, Trust also has a positive impact on EPS use. Though Perceived Security does not directly affect Use of E-payment system, it has indirect effect on e-payment system through Trust. Technical Protection and Transaction Procedures are important from consumers' perspective as they affect perceived security which further leads to trust and Use of e-payment system. Thus, in order to increase adoption of e-payment system, system administrators should pay attention to feature related to technical protection like authentication and verification, communicating the confirmation of transaction. Error-prone transaction procedures, maintaining privacy and confidentiality of consumer information during e-payment transactions are also important for favourable consumer perception of security. Security statements on security-policy, contact information under emergency, technical descriptions and functionalities of EPS also helps in improving consumer perception about security of the system. The results also indicate that simply improving technical protection of the e-payment system is not sufficient and it is also important to state the security policies of the system and communicate it to consumers throughout the transaction so as to make him feel secure. Management needs to focus on the promotion of security beliefs among consumers when designing security systems.

6. REFERENCES:

1. Abrazhevich, D. (2004), "Electronic payment systems: a user-centered perspective and interaction design",PhD thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven.

2. Aladwani, A. M. (2001). Online banking: a field study of drivers, development challenges, and expectations. International Journal of Information Management, 21(3), 213-225.

3. BCG and Google (2016), Digital Payments 2020, retrieved from http.//www.bcg.com/en-in/d/press/25july20 16-digital-payments-2020-making-500-billion-ecosystem-in-india-39417.

4. Chellappa, R. K., andPavlou, P. A. (2002). Perceived information security, financial liability and con SlIl1Je:"trust in electronic-commerce transactions.Logistics Information Management, 15(5/6), 358-368.

5. Cotteleer, M. 1., Cotteleer, C. A., and Prochnow, A.(2007). Cutting checks: challenges and choices in B 2B epayments.

6. Communications of the ACM,50(6), 56-61.

7. Coulter, K. S., and Coulter, R A. (2002). Determinants of trust in a service provider: the moderating role of length of relationship. Journal of services marketing,16(1), 35-50.

8. Dani, A. R, and Krishna, f. R (2001, September). An E -check framework for electronic payment systems -the web based environment. In International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Technologies (pp. 91-100). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

9. Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 1-19.

10. Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: the role offamiliarity and trust. Omega,28(6), 725-737.

11. Hanzaee, K. H., andAlinejad, S. (2012). An investigation about customers perceptions of security and e-payment systems among Iranian online consumers. Journal of Basic and Applied ScientificResearch,2(2), 1575-158.

12. Hausman, A. v., andSiekpe, 1. S. (2009). The effect of web interface features on consumer online purchase Intentions. Journal of Business Research ,62(1), 5-13.

13. Herzberg, A. (2003). Payments and banking with mobile personal devices. Communications of ACM, 46(5), 53-58.

14. Hwang, R 1., Shiau, S. H., and Jan, D. F. (2007). A new mobile payment scheme for roaming services. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(2),184-191.

15. International Monetary Fund (2013), International Financial Statistics, retrieved http://comtrade. un.org/pb/downloads/20 13IITSY20 13Voll.pdf.

16. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., and Saarinen, L. (1999). Consumer trust in an intemet store: a crossvalidation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2),61-74.

17. Kim, c., Tao, w., Shin, N., and Kim, K. S. (2010). An empirical study of customers' perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems.Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), 84-95.

18. Kniberg, H. (2002). What makes a micropayment solution succeed? Institution for Applied Information Technology. Kista, Kungliga'Iekniskaliogskolan .

19. Laudon, K. C.Traver. CG (2001) E-Commerce: Business,Technology,Society. Addison Wesley Publishing.

20. Lawrence, E., Newton, S., Corbitt, B., Braithwaite, R, and Parker, C. Technology of Internet Business, John Wiley and Sons Australia Publishing, 2002.

21. Lirn, A. S. (2008). Inter-consortia battles in mobile payments standardization.Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(2), 202-213.

22. Lirn, B., Lee, H., and Kumia, S. (2007). Exploring the reasons for a failure of electronic payment system a case study of an Australian company.Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 39 (4) 231-244.

23. Linck, K., Pousttchi, K., Wiedemann, D. G. Security issues in mobile payment from the customer viewpoint. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems (EClS 2006) Goteborg, Schweden, 2006, 1-11.

24. MacInnes, I. (2005), "Causes of disputes in online auctions", Electronic Markets, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 146-57.

25. Mayer, RC., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.

26. Mody B. (2016), Scenario of Digital Payments in India 2016: Trends and Future, retrieved -http://www.iamwire.com/20 16/03/scenario -digital-payments- India- 20 16-trends- future/133921.

27. Montazemi, A. R., and Qahri-Saremi, H. (2015). Factors affecting adoption of online banking: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling study.Information and Management, 52(2), 210-226 .

28. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978,pp. 23-45.

29. Peha, J. M., and Khamitov, I. M. (2005). PayCash: a secure efficient Internet payment system. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 3(4), 381-388.

30. Romdhane, C. (2005). Security implications of electronic commerce: a survey of consumers and businesses. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 9(5), 372-382.

31. Stroborn, K., Heitrnann, A., Leibold, K., and Frank, G. (2004). Internet payments in Germany: a classificatory framework and empirical evidence.Journal of Business Research, 57(12),1431-1437.

32. T. Efraim, C.H. Michael and L. K. Jae (2006), Electronic Commerce: A Managerial Perspective, PrenticeHall.

33. The Fletcher School (2014), The Cost of Cash in India, retrieved from http://fletcher. tufts.edu/CostofCash/India.

34. Tsiakis, T., and Sthephanides, G. (2005).The concept of security and trust in electronic payments. Computers

35. and Security, 24(1), 10-15.

36. Weir, C. S., Anderson, J. N., and Jack, M. A. (2006). On the role of metaphor and language in design of third

37. party payments in eBanking: Usability and quality. International Journal of Human-ComputerStudies, 64(8), 770-784.

38. Whiteley, D. (2000). E-commerce: strategy, technologies and applications. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Received on 31.07.2018 Modified on 21.08.2018

Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2018; 6(3):291-296.

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2018.00030.8