A recent ruling by a consumer commission in Himachal Pradesh has ordered digital payments platform Paytm to compensate a customer over ₹21,000. The decision stems from Paytm's failure to transfer a flight ticket refund that had already been remitted by Go Airlines to the platform.
Commission Holds Paytm Responsible for Deficiency in Service
The Bilaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued an order on July 18, directing Paytm to refund the original amount of ₹6,437, along with 6% annual interest from the complaint filing date. Additionally, Paytm must pay ₹10,000 as compensation for harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs, bringing the total to ₹21,437, excluding interest.
The complaint against Go Airlines was dismissed after the commission determined the airline had fulfilled its obligation by transferring the refund amount to Paytm. The commission found Paytm guilty of a “deficiency in service,” emphasizing its responsibility to ensure the refund reached the passenger once it received the funds.
Background of the Dispute
The complainant had booked return flight tickets between Chandigarh and Srinagar through Paytm for a trip with a friend. The return flight, scheduled for April 7, 2020, was canceled due to the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Despite repeated attempts to contact both the airline and Paytm, the customer never received the refund, leading to the consumer forum complaint.
Airline Processed Refund After Scheme Expiration
Go Airlines informed the commission that it had initially offered a “Protect Your PNR” scheme, allowing passengers to retain the fare for future bookings. After this scheme's validity expired, the airline processed the refund and transferred ₹6,437 to Paytm, the platform through which the original booking was made.
Paytm's Defense Rejected
Paytm, in its defense, claimed it had attempted to refund the amount twice by sending refund links to the complainant. The company argued that the customer failed to claim the money before these links expired. However, the bench, comprising President Purender Vaidya and members Manchali and Jagdish Thakur, rejected this explanation.
"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 confirmed it had received the refund from Go Airlines. It further highlighted that Paytm could have directly requested the complainant's bank account details for a direct transfer instead of leaving the issue unresolved. The bench also pointed out that Paytm chose to contest the case rather than simply refunding the amount even after the complaint was filed.
Obligation to Ensure Customer Receives Funds
Addressing Paytm's assertion of a technical glitch preventing the refund, the commission stated that such issues do not absolve a company of its duty to ensure the customer receives their 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 concluded.
The commission found that the complainant was unnecessarily harassed and forced into litigation due to Paytm's failure to complete the refund process despite having received the funds from the airline.