Delhi District Court
M/S Interglobe Technolgies ... vs Ms. Kavita Dadlani D/O Chander Prakash ... on 21 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE07 (SE)
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
CS No. 8124/16
In the matter of:
M/s Interglobe Technolgies International Pvt Ltd.
Block 2B, DLF Corporate Park,
DLF City, PhaseIII,
Gurgaon122002, Haryana.
...........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Ms. Kavita Dadlani D/o Chander Prakash Dadlani
R/o F30, Old Doubly Storey,
Lajpat NagarIV,
New Delhi110024 ......... Defendant
Date of Institution : 25.01.2016
Date of Reserving : 18.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 21.07.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit is for recovery of losses and damages.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that plaintiff company is a business process outsourcing and information technology services provider in travel, transportation and hospitality domain. It offers M/s Interglobe Technologies International Pvt Ltd Vs. Kavita Dadlani Page No. 1 of 7 integrated ITBPO services comprising of application development and maintenance, contact centre services, back office services, consulting services and solution frameworks to the travel industry worldwide.
3. It is stated that one Expedia, Inc, a company registered and existing under the laws of the United States of America (hereinafter Expedia), is a client of the plaintiff company availing its telephone, email and/or other contact centre or business process support on an outsourcing basis (hereinafter BPO Services). A separate department has been created for providing them BPO services. The same for ease of convenience is called the 'Expedia Process'.
4. It is stated that under the arrangement between Expedia and the plaintiff, the employees of the plaintiff working in the Expedia process as agents (hereinafter 'agents') are accredited to make hotel and airline bookings, issue discount coupons/vouchers, cancel existing bookings and initiate refunds against such cancellations under the guidelines issued by Expedia. All such transactions are undertaken through software tools provided by Expedia such as 'Voyager' 'Admin Tools', 'Navigator' (hereinafter "Software Tools"). Voyager and Admin Tools are web-based tools owned by Expedia Inc. which enables agents to do transactions on itineraries. Since these are web-based tools, these tools are accessible from outside M/s Interglobe Technologies International Pvt Ltd Vs. Kavita Dadlani Page No. 2 of 7 the plaintiff's network. These tools allow the user to change, cancel, modify or create bookings and process refunds and issue goodwill coupons.
5. The defendant approached the plaintiff seeking a job in the BPO process. Pursuant to the application/interview formalities, the plaintiff was pleased to confirm the candidature of the defendant as "process associate" from 26.10.2012 by issuing a letter of intent dated 24.10.2012. Defendant joined the services of plaintiff vide appointment letter dated 26.10.2012. Defendant started working in the expedia process and had access to the beforementioned software tools. Defendant was authorized to issue 'goodwill' vouchers/coupons aimed at enhancing the service experience of the customers. The defendant had been given instructions as to the protocol for issuance/non issuance of the coupons. These coupons could be used by the customers to avail discounts on future purchases. Whenever customer would make a booking in the future, they have an option to apply a goodwill coupon and amount of the coupon would be reduced from the value of the cart. In March, 2014, the defendant started abusing her access to the software tools by issuing M/s Interglobe Technologies International Pvt Ltd Vs. Kavita Dadlani Page No. 3 of 7 coupons by fraudulent means and in utter disregard of all instructions and protocol, the said coupons were issued in absence of any customer calls, documentation etc. Many were issued without any corresponding itinerary numbers. The certain anomalies were highlighted by Expedia which led to an investigation by the plaintiff's compliance department and in the consequent investigation, it was found that the defendant was actively involved in numerous nefarious transactions. It came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant used to issue coupons to her known persons in utter disregard of the prescribed guidelines/protocol. Defendant in order to avoid her liability resigned from the plaintiff company on 10.12.2014. It is further stated that a complaint had already been filed with the cyber crime cell, Gurgaon on 27.12.2014 in respect of fraudulent transactions indulged into by the defendant. Subsequently, a FIR was registered by the Udoyg Vihar, police station, Gurgaon, Haryana being FIR No.,, 124 of 2015 u/s 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act. It is further submitted that plaintiff has resulted in a loss of US $ 61,173/ i.e. Rs. 39,15,072/.
6. Defendant was served on 15.06.2016 but she has not appeared M/s Interglobe Technologies International Pvt Ltd Vs. Kavita Dadlani Page No. 4 of 7 before court and was proceeded exparte on 22.09.2016.
7. Thereafter, matter was listed for exparte plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff examined one Sh. Manmeet Bakshi, Manager of plaintiff company as PW1 on 17.08.2017 and exhibited documents i.e. Letter of Authority as Ex PW1/1, Copy of letter of intent dated 24.10.2012 as Ex PW1/2, copy of the appointment letter dated 26.10.2012 as Ex PW1/3, copy of the sample date along with screen shots of a valid along with certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex PW1/4, copy of complaint dated 23.03.2015 is Ex PW1/6, copy of the complaints filed on 27.12.2014, 27.02.2015, 20.04.2015 and 21.05.2015 as Ex PW1/7, copy of the relevant date showing fraudulent transactions Ex PW1/8, copy of FIR no. 124 of 10.04.2015 as Ex PW1/9.
8. Thereafter additional affidavit was filed by plaintiff Sh. Manmeet Bakshi and exhibited documents i.e. print out of letter dated 07.01.2016 as Ex PW1/9, print out of the invoices dated 16.05.2016, 26.05.2016, 13.06.2016, 14.06.2016 as Ex PW1/10, print out of the copy of the invoices dated 28.10.2015, 04.11.2015 is Ex PW1/11. Thereafter, PE was closed and the matter was listed for exparte final arguments. M/s Interglobe Technologies International Pvt Ltd Vs. Kavita Dadlani Page No. 5 of 7
9. Thereafter, matter was listed for exparte arguments.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. Plaintiff has relied upon a document Ex PW1/4 which is a copy of a sample data along with the screen shots of a validly issued coupon along with affidavit u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The said document shows that the goodwill coupons were being issued to the customers /clients who had availed the services of the plaintiff company and the number of their user coupon is also mentioned on the said document. However, the perusal of Ex PW1/8 which is a copy of the data showing the fraudulent transactions done by the defendant shows that no such user coupon number finds mention in the entries issuing goodwill coupons to different persons. Even the column of "Issue Reason Description" has been left blank and no reason has been assigned as to why this column was left blank. PW1 in his affidavit has stated that the aforesaid fraudulent tactics indulged into by the defendant had resulted in a loss of US $ 61,173/ (Rs. 39,15,072/) and the same was paid on the form of discounts by the plaintiff company to Expedia, for whom the process was being run. Defendant has failed to appear in court despite service by way M/s Interglobe Technologies International Pvt Ltd Vs. Kavita Dadlani Page No. 6 of 7 of publication. There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of plaintiff. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an amount of Rs. 39,15,072/ along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the filing of the suit till the date of realization of the said amount. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by
VANDANA VANDANA JAIN
JAIN Date: 2018.07.23
14:59:10 +0530
Announced in the open ( VANDANA JAIN)
court on 21.07.2018 Additional District Judge07/SE
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
M/s Interglobe Technologies International Pvt Ltd Vs. Kavita Dadlani Page No. 7 of 7