Tashu
46.0% Critical📞 1 calls analyzed · 100 point scale · 4 categories · 15 parameters
🔑 Captured Identifiers & Reference Numbers
AI-extracted from conversation — the final confirmed value after all corrections, not just the first mention.
EMP161388972
💡 Customer said 'Nine seven two'; agent repeated '970' at the end, creating a mismatch.
nitinbudeja@gmail.com
💡 Spelled out by customer.
9793996580
💡 Provided once.
📋 Call Summary
What Happened in the Call
Root Cause
Customer’s train booking attempt on 9 Jan failed but payment was deducted; refund not received for ~1.5 months despite repeated emails.
Call Flow
Agent Tashu gives EaseMyTrip greeting; customer introduces self and states failed train booking with amount deducted and no refund for ~1.5 months.
Agent asks for booking ID; customer dictates booking ID starting with EMP and digits.
Agent asks for verification details; customer provides email and phone number.
Agent says senior/backend team will share concern to relevant department; requests hold to check.
Agent returns: says refund is being worked on due to payment gateway issue; asks customer to wait 24–48 hours for update; mentions refund 'processed' but still pending.
Customer suggests issue may be credit card/BharatPe network and offers bank details for direct deposit; agent’s explanation is unclear and customer reports voice breaking.
Second hold; agent returns stating concern is raised to backend and customer must wait for refund update.
Customer requests email acknowledgement/reply; agent says automation acknowledges and update will come; agent ends call.
Turning Points
Agent sets expectation to wait 24–48 hours due to payment gateway issue.
Provided a timeline but without concrete confirmation (amount/reference/case ID), leaving uncertainty.
Customer proposes alternative (share bank details for direct refund) and flags unclear audio/understanding.
Agent did not convert this into a workable alternative resolution path; communication clarity dropped.
❌ What Went Wrong
- • No concrete refund details shared (refund amount, transaction reference/ARN, case/ticket number).
- • Confusing/possibly incorrect explanation about 'credit card not on BharatPe network'.
- • Booking ID digits appear inconsistently captured at the end (972 vs 970).
- • Customer concern about repeated emails not being replied to was not properly addressed with a clear commitment.
✅ What Went Right
- • Agent collected booking ID and verified email/phone and used holds with permission.
Outcome
Refund not completed; agent advised waiting 24–48 hours and said backend is working on it.
💡 Could This Call Have Been Avoided?
Yes — clearer automated communication with a case ID, refund tracking reference (ARN/UTR), and accurate SLA after the initial failed booking would reduce repeat contacts.
Score
46.0%
46 / 100 pts
Duration
4 mins 30 secs
Type
refund
Status
partial
🚨 Red Flags
📁 tashu.mp3 · 🕐 [02:00]-[04:10] · Impact: Customer left without actionable proof or traceability; high repeat-call risk.
📁 tashu.mp3 · 🕐 [02:40]-[03:15] · Impact: Reduced trust and clarity; customer could not understand the reason for delay.
📁 tashu.mp3 · 🕐 [00:55] · Impact: Risk of wrong-case mapping or delayed resolution.
💡 Recommendations
Customer offered bank details for direct refund; agent missed a chance to guide the correct process (if supported) or explain why it’s not possible.
📁 tashu.mp3❌ What happened
✅ Better approach
💬 Example script
Incorrect/unclear payment gateway explanations create confusion and reduce credibility.
📁 tashu.mp3❌ What happened
✅ Better approach
💬 Example script
Customer needs concrete refund traceability (amount + reference) especially after long delay; otherwise the call cannot reassure or resolve.
📁 tashu.mp3❌ What happened
✅ Better approach
💬 Example script