A woman purchased three bus tickets for the Lviv-Kyiv route but was unable to use them. She demands a refund of 2400 hryvnias. This is stated in the decision of the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv, published on May 1, 2024.
On July 5, 2023, the woman bought three bus tickets for the Lviv-Kyiv route from LLC "I-Travels" via the Busfor website. Due to personal reasons, she attempted to return the tickets. She was informed by email that her refund request had been accepted, the booking was canceled, and the tickets were fully annulled. However, upon contacting Busfor, she received a letter stating that her money would not be refunded.
The court found that on July 5, 2023, the woman purchased three tickets for the Lviv-Kyiv flight from the agency LLC "I-Travels" on the Busfor website. The cost of each ticket was 800 hryvnias, totaling 2400 hryvnias, which was confirmed by an extract from the account of the State Savings Bank of Ukraine. According to the mentioned tickets, the transportation service was scheduled for July 5, 2023, at 06:45 from Lviv, with the boarding point being the Central Railway Station and the destination Kyiv. Immediately after purchasing the tickets, she attempted to return them on the website, but the "Refund" button was inactive. In the "Personal Account" section, she learned that refunds are not available less than 12 hours before departure.
The case materials include a screenshot from the website, confirming that on July 5, 2023, the woman was informed by email about the acceptance of her refund request, the cancellation of the booking, and the annulment of the tickets. Additionally, on July 5, 2023, she received a letter stating that a refund for order No. 53725500 was not possible.
The court denied the woman's claim. The case materials lack evidence indicating that the carrier informed her about the cancellation of the flight, and she has no right to demand a full refund for the ticket.
"The plaintiff's evidence in the lawsuit does not constitute grounds for satisfying the claims, as they are based on assumptions and incorrect interpretations of substantive and procedural law," the court emphasized.