Delhi

North East

CC/165/2021

RAJESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

DINESH SINGH BACHGOTI

02 May 2023

ORDER

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.165/21

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Chinta Mani Mahaur R/o 807, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ANI Technologies, Shop No. 48, Ground Floor, Krishna Market, Kalkaji-110019	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

02.11.2021 15.03.2023 02.05.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

                                                               ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

      Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 01.10.2021 Complainant booked a cab through mobile based app of the Opposite Party for his wife and Father-In-Law to take them from home at 807, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi-110093 to ION Digital Zone Sector 62, Noida(destination). This booking was done under the package “a Rental Mini category cab with 6 hours and a 60 kilometre”. Total price was Rs. 999/-. After that the Opposite Party sent Dzire tour car bearing registration no. DL 1ZB 7946. The journey started from source at 09:34 a.m. and about 10:15 a.m. car reached the destination.  Purpose of the journey was to attend the exam of DSSSB on 01.10.2021 which was started at 12:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m. After reaching destination and after dropping the travellers, driver left on the pretext of filling gas in the car and did not come back till 03:10 p.m. Father in law of the Complainant called driver so many times but driver did not came to pick up location till 03:10 p.m. Driver kept on missing from the pickup location for more than 02 hours and went somewhere else. The first destination as set by the Complainant was iON Digital Zone, Sector 62, Noida and second destination was his home address i.e. GTB Enclave, Delhi-110093. No other destination was set by the Complainant during entire journey. The approx. destination between home and destination is approx. 17 km, hence total destination should be approx. 34 km but distance charged by the Opposite Party is 73.3 km which is 39.3 km more than the actual distance travelled. As per the package, Opposite Party should charge only for 60 km whereas it charged for 73.3 km which increased the ride fare by Rs. 152.95/-. Additional 13.3 km is charged with malafide intention which substantiate the unfair trade practices. Opposite Party also charged for extra time i.e. 13 minutes which increased the ride fare by Rs. 21/- whereas Complainant must be compensated for the delays caused by the Opposite Party due to gross negligence act of the Opposite Party. Driver of the cab was missing for more than 02 hours after reaching first destination. Opposite Party charged extra fare which amount to Rs. 273.95 plus associated taxes on this. Complainant spoke with customer care of the Opposite Party so many times and also wrote to customer care via emails so many times but Opposite Party did not listen to the Complainant and kept harassing him. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 273.95 plus associated taxes and Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. As per the Opposite Party the drivers/rider partners are associated with the Opposite Party in the capacity of an independent contractor i.e. on principal-to-principal basis and not as employee or agent of the Opposite party. As such, even assuming and without admitting that the driver/rider partner was negligent in his duties, the Opposite Party cannot be held liable for the conduct/actions/omissions on part of the driver/rider partner. It is also clarified that the Opposite Party does not provide driving or transportation services. It is most humble submitted that the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party, which are accepted by all its users before registering on its platform, clearly state that the Opposite Party is merely an electronic platform whose services are limited to facilitation of aggregation of vehicles and does not in any manner provide transportation services. The terms and conditions also clearly state that the Opposite Party does not guarantee or provide assurance in respect of the behaviours or actions of its driver/rider partners. Since, the services provided by the Opposite Party are limited to the extent of providing a technology based platform for facilitation of transport services, it is most humbly submitted that bare perusal of allegations of the Complainant on deficiency of services and unfair trade practices on part of the Opposite Party, are outside the scope of services provided by the Opposite Party and does not fall within the definition of a “Complaint” in terms of Section 2(6) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 qua the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that all the drivers/rider partners plying taxis on the platform of the Opposite Party are individuals and independent transport service providers who have opted to enlist themselves on the platform of the Opposite party. Such drivers/rider partners have a purely contractual relationship with the Opposite Party. In view of the above, it is abundantly there has been no deficiency of services qua the services provided to the wife/father-in-law of the Complainant or any unfair trade practices adopted by the Opposite party as alleged in the complaint. Further, it is submitted that Complainant herein had bought the package “Rental Mini category cab with 6 hours/60 Kms”, which translates into renting a “Mini” category vehicle for 6 hours during which a distance of 60 Kms is inclusive. In case the User avails the service for more than 6 hours or 60 Kms (whichever is exhausted first), the User is charged an extra (additional)fare per km and./or per hour as per Policy. Admittedly, as per the Complainant, his wife and father-in-law had availed the aforementioned package purchased by the Complainant on 01.10.2021 at 09:34 a.m, to attend the exam  of DSSSB at iON Digital Zone, Sector 62 Noida. The duration of the exam was from 12:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m. During the 3 hours’ gap between the pick-up time and exam starting time, the passengers took de-routes/made several other stops due to which the total travelled distance was calculated as 73.3 Kms. Therefore, the extra fare of Rs. 152.95/- was imposed on the Complainant for the extra 13.3 Kms. It is pertinent to point out the examination centre located at iON Digital Zone, Sector 62 Noida is located in a busy area, surrounded by several other academic institutions and offices and it is reasonable to presume that it takes additional time for any vehicle to exit the parking space of an examination centre, specifically during peak lunch hour of offices and academic institutions. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the time taken for his wife to exit the examination hall, the vehicle to exit the examination centre, travel time to GTB Enclave from Noida considering both locations are heavy traffic areas, can be 1 hour 13 minutes in total. It is submitted that due to the aforementioned reasons, the passengers reached their final drop location at 03:42 p.m., 9 min after exhaustion of the 6 hours’ limit. Therefore, an extra fare of Rs. 21 was imposed on the Complainant. Further, the Complainant has claimed that he had been charged Rs. 200/- towards State Tax/MCD unfairly. It is submitted that the same was charged towards Toll Tax imposed on commercial vehicles from Delhi to Noida and vice-versa as per applicable law. It has been clearly stated in the User’s Terms and Conditions that the User has to bear the expenses towards any State/MCD Tax imposed on the ride as per applicable law. It is pertinent to state that the User has the option to pay the State Tax/MCD/Toll Tax directly to the concerned authority or to the Opposite Party. The passengers herein chose to pay the same to the Opposite party. It is vehemently denied that the driver/rider partner left the location and could not be contacted for more than 2 hours. It is submitted that the Complainant has not filed a single record of attempting to contact the driver/rider partner or make a complaint with the customer care of the Opposite Party. If this was in fact, the situation. Therefore, since the passengers travelled and additional 13.3 kms, an additional fare of Rs. 152.95/- was imposed on the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant did not make any calls to the customer care during the period of the alleged absence of the driver/rider partner; nor at a later stage. It is further denied that the Opposite Party kept on harassing him without giving due answers. Vide E-mails dated 08.10.2021, 13.10.2021, 15.10.2021, 16.10.2021, 20.10.2021 and 21.10.2021, the Opposite Partly resolved the Complainant’s queries and explained the breakdown of the total fare charged in detail. The Complainant’s dissatisfaction with the resolution cannot be deemed to be harassment or evasion on part of the Opposite Party. 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Sh. Rishabh Arora, C/o M/s ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. In affidavit, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he had booked a cab through mobile based app of the Opposite Party under the package “a Rental Mini category cab with 6 hours and a 60 kilometre” for total price of Rs. 999/-. After booking, the Opposite Party sent a car of journey started from source at 09:34 a.m. and 10:15 a.m car reached the destination. Purpose of journey was to attend the exam of DSSSB which was started at 12:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m. After reaching the destination and after dropping the traveller, driver left on the pretext of filling gas in the car and did not come back till 03:10 p.m. Driver kept on missing from the pickup location for more than 02 hours and went somewhere else. The first destination as set by the Complainant was iON Digital Zone, Sector 62, Noida and second destination was his home address i.e. GTB Enclave, Delhi-110093. No other destination was set by the Complainant during entire journey. The approx. destination between home and destination is apporx. 17 km, hence total destination should be apporx. 34 km but distance charged by the Opposite Party is 73.3 km which is 39.3 km more than the actual distance travelled. As per the package, Opposite party should charge only for 60 km whereas it charged for 73.3 km which increased the ride fare by Rs. 152.95. Additional 13.3 km is charged with malafide intention which substantiate the unfair trade practices. Opposite Party also charged for extra time i.e. 13 minutes which increased the ride fare by Rs. 21/- whereas the Complainant must be compensated for the delays caused by the Opposite Party due to gross negligence act of the Opposite Party. Since, driver  of the cab was missing for more than 02 hours after reaching the first destination. Opposite Party also charged the Complainant of Rs. 200/- for toll tax which amount to total extra charged by the Opposite Party come to Rs. 273.95/-. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had bought the package “Rental Mini category cab with 6 hours/60 kms”, which translates into renting a “Mini” category vehicle for 6 hours during which a distance of 60 km is inclusive. In case the User avails the service for more than 6 hours or 60 km (whichever is exhausted first), the User is charged an extra (additional) fare per km and/or per hour as per policy. It is alleged by the Opposite Party that during 3 hours’ gap between the pick-up time and exam starting time, the passengers took de-routes/made several other stops due to which the total travelled distance was 73.3 km. Therefore, the extra fare of Rs. 152.95 was imposed on the Complainant for the extra 13.3 km. Further it was submitted by the Opposite Party that Rs. 200/- towards State Tax/MCD was charged towards toll tax imposed on commercial vehicles from Delhi to Noida and vice-versa as per applicable law. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party that it is vehemently denied that the driver/rider partner left the location and could not be contacted for more than 02 hours.
7. Opposite Party failed to submit any document or affidavit by the driver regarding car was available with the Complainant through the 6 hours as per package taken by the Complainant and passenger took de-route or made several stops due to which the total distance exceeded the package by the Complainant. As per notification dated 31.10.2007 issued by the Government of Delhi, toll tax per entry for taxi is Rs. 100/- and Complainant was charged Rs. 200/- on this account. Hence, in our opinion there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
8. In view of above discussion, complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 273.95/- to the Complainant which is charged extra fare on the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
9. Order announced on 02.05.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) (Member)

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President