Airline Sent ₹6,437, customer got nothing. Know why Paytm must now pay ₹21,000

A consumer commission in Himachal Pradesh has ordered Paytm to pay more than ₹21,000 to a customer after finding that the platform failed to pass on a flight ticket refund that had already been transferred by the airline, according to a report by Times of India.

Holding Paytm guilty of deficiency in service, the commission said the company was responsible for ensuring the refund reached the passenger once it received the money from Go Airlines.

The Bilaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in an order dated July 18, directed Paytm to refund ₹6,437 to the complainant along with 6% annual interest from the date the complaint was filed until payment is made. The company was also ordered to pay ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

The complaint against Go Airlines was dismissed after the commission found that the airline had already transferred the refund amount to Paytm.

Don't Miss: After 16-year legal battle, former IPL chief Lalit Modi to return to India

According to the order, the complainant had booked return flight tickets between Chandigarh and Srinagar through Paytm for a trip with a friend. The return flight was scheduled for April 7, 2020, but was cancelled due to the nationwide Covid-19 lockdown.

The complainant told the commission that despite repeatedly emailing both the airline and the booking platform, he never received the refund. He subsequently approached the consumer forum alleging deficiency in service.

Airline said refund had already been sent

Go Airlines informed the commission that it had introduced a "Protect Your PNR" scheme, which allowed passengers to retain the fare amount for future bookings instead of opting for an immediate refund.

The airline said that after the validity of the scheme expired, it processed the refund and transferred ₹6,437 to Paytm, through which the ticket had been booked.

Paytm, however, argued that it had attempted to refund the amount twice through refund links sent to the complainant. According to the company, the customer failed to claim the money before the links expired.

Commission rejects Paytm's defence

The bench comprising President Purender Vaidya and members Manchali and Jagdish Thakur held that Paytm's explanation was not sufficient to absolve it of responsibility.

"The only plea of the opposite party No.2 is that refund link was shared with the complainant, but complainant did not take steps for the refund and shared link expired. But, the self-serving affidavit of opposite party No.2 is not sufficient to prove this plea," the bench noted.

The commission observed that Paytm's own records showed it had received the refund from the airline. It further noted that the platform could have sought the complainant's bank account details and directly transferred the money instead of leaving the issue unresolved.

The bench also pointed out that even after the complaint was filed, Paytm chose to contest the case instead of simply refunding the amount.

Failure to ensure refund reached customer amounted to deficiency in service

Addressing Paytm's claim that a technical glitch had prevented the refund from being completed, the commission said such issues did not relieve the company of its obligation to ensure the customer received the money.

"It was the duty of the opposite party No.2 to see how refund process was to be completed and how this amount was to be repaid or refunded to the complainant. But, the opposite party No.2 failed to discharge the said duty, which amounts to deficiency in service," the commission observed.

The commission further held that the complainant had been unnecessarily harassed and forced into litigation because Paytm failed to complete the refund process despite having already received the money from the airline.

"Since complainant was unnecessarily harassed by the opposite party No.2 and he was forced to file the present complaint, therefore, the opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 and litigation cost to the tune of Rs 5,000 to complainant," the commission concluded.

Paytm ordered to pay refund, compensation and legal costs

As a result, the commission directed Paytm to pay the original refund amount of ₹6,437, along with ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses, taking the total amount payable to ₹21,437, excluding interest.

The complaint against Go Airlines was dismissed, with the commission holding that the airline had fulfilled its responsibility by transferring the refund amount to Paytm.