ORDER
Per Rakesh Kapoor , President

On 10-7-2014, the complainant had booked a cab with the OP vide
booking No. D 701003179.  The cab was booked for taking the
complainant from Delhi High Court to his residence in Daryaganj New
Delhi.  It is alleged by the complainant that he had booked the cab
for 6.30 PM and had received a confirmation from the  OP. The
complainant was supplied with  the particulars of cab(car no. 6662)
and the telephone number of the chauffer.  It was to  reach Delhi High
court gate number 7 by 6.30 PM. It is alleged by the complainant that
the cab did not arrive at the said gate even though he kept on waiting
for more than 50 minutes from its scheduled  time of arrival.   Since,
the cab did not arrive ,the complainant in utter  helplessness
cancelled the booking  at 7.22 PM. The complainant also lodged a
complaint on telephone for the non arrival of the cab vide complaint
no. C7352486.  The complainant has alleged that he was put to much
harassment and agony as he had to wait for more than 50 minutes
without any information as to when the cab will arrive.  He has
alleged gross deficiency in service andan unfair trade practice on the
part of theOP and has, therefore, claimed damages to the tune of Rs.
50,000/-  .  The complainant had served a legal notice dated 7.8.2014
on the OP  but did not receive any reply to the same. Hence, the
complaint.
The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement.
The OP has taken a preliminary objectionthat the complaint is false ,
frivolous , vague and vexatious in nature and is liable to be
dismissed under section 26 of the  Consumer Protection Act 1986. Paras
3 , 4 , 5 and  6 of the preliminary objections and submissions of the
written statement are relevant for the purpose of the  decision of
this complainant  and are reproduced as under:
3. That the as per the policy of the Opposite Party all car rental
duties received by the Opposite Party via phone call or web are done
only after opening Booking Job Card and all the details of the booking
such as ‘Name of the Caller, phone number of the caller, call taken
by, call taken at, Pick up at; assigned by; assigned at; cancelled by;
cancelled at; pickup & drop address details, vehicle assignment; Trip
completion details” are mentioned for processing the cab service. In
the present case, the Complainant called the customer center of the
Opposite Party through Mobile No. 9818200333 and the call was taken at
10.07.2014 at 06:21:04 PM for pickup at 19:25 PM from Gate No.7, Delhi
High Court, Central Delhi to 44 Ground Floor, Behind Fresh Bazar Darya
Ganj Police Station. In terms of the booking of the Complainant, the
cab was scheduled at 19:25 PM. 1-lowever, prior to the scheduled time
i.e. 19:25 PM, the cab was cancelled by the Complainant himself at
07:21 :57 PM. The screen shot of the booking of the Complainant is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-2.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant in the complaint
had stated that he had booked the cab for pickup at 06:30 PM from Gate
No.7, Delhi High Court, Central Delhi to 44 Ground Floor, Behind Fresh
Bazar Darya Ganj Police Station. However, it had to understand as to
how a cab can be provided within seven minutes from the me of the
booking.
5. It is submitted that the cal center executive of the Opposite Par
had booked the cab for the Complainant on 10.07.2014 at 06:21:04 PM
for
pickup at 19:25 PM from Gate No.7, Delhi High Court, Central Delhi to
44 Ground Floor, Behind Fresh Bazar Darya Ganj Police Station. In
terms of the booking of the Complainant, the cab was scheduled at
19:25 PM. However, prior to the scheduled time i.e. 19:25 PM, the cab
was cancelled by the Complainant himself at 07:21:57 PM.
6. The Opposite Patty after receiving call from the Complainant w.r.t.
the complains about the services of the Opposite Party, the officials
of the Opposite Party without enquiring about the status of the
booking of the Complainant, apologized to the Complainant and as a
goodwill gesture and being a reputed organization offered a free ride
coupon of Rs. 500/- to the Complainant, which was refused by the
Complainant.


The OP has stated that there are no merits in this complaint and has
prayed that the same be dismissed.
The complainant has filed a rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the
contents of his complaint and has controverted with and denied those
made in the written statement.  It would be relevant to quote Paras
III, IV and V of the rejoinder which read as under:-
III. That the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by
Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has formulated “The Rent a
Cab Scheme, 1989” (hereinafter called as “the Scheme”). Under Section
8 of the Scheme, the Opposite Party is under law required to maintain
a “complaint book” in the Form 7 with serially numbered pages in
triplicate. The Opposite Party for reasons best known has not filed
the complaint book in this Hon’ble Forum.

IV. That the complainant had made a complaint on three occasions to
the Opposite Party regarding deficiency in service. Firstly the
complaint was made by Complaint No. C-07352486 on 10.07.2014. Secondly
the complaint was made by letter dated 26.07.2014 to the Opposite
Party. Thirdly the complaint was made by legal notice dated
11.08.2014. None of the complaints were responded to by the Opposite
Party. Neither the letter dated 26.07.20 14 nor the legal notice dated
 11.08.2014 was replied to by the Opposite Party. As stated earlier,
the complaint book which the Opposite Party is duty bound to maintain
has not been produced in this Hon’ble Forum for reasons best known to
the Opposite Party.

V. That the Opposite Party under the Scheme under Section 8 has to
despatch a copy of the complaint to the licensing authority by
registered post expeditiously and in any case not later than three
days. The relevant Section 8 of the Scheme is reproduced as under: -


“8. General conditions to be observed by the holder of the licence. —
The holder of a licence shall, -
(i)
Maintain a register with a separate page for such vehicle containing
the particulars specified in form 5 and where a motor cab is hired by
a foreign national, shall maintain a register in Form 5;
(ii)xxxx
(iii)xxxx
(iv)xxxx
(v)xxxx
(vi) maintain in their main office and branch offices in a conspicuous
place a “complaint book” in the Form 7 with serially
numbered pages in triplicate. The licensees shall dispatch the
duplicate copy of complaint, if any, to the licensing authority by
registered post expeditiously and in any case not later than 3 days;
(vii)xxxx
(viii)xxxx”

We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The case of the complainant is that he had booked a cab with the OP on
10.7.2014 for 6.30 PM  for travelling to his residence in Daryaganj,
Delhi from Delhi High Court gate no. 7. As per the complainant, the
cab was booked at about 6.20 PM.  It is his case that he had kept on
waiting for the cab till 7.22PM but since the cab did not arrive, he
made the cancellation at the said time. The OP on the other hand has
alleged that even though the complainant had booked a cab on 10.7.2014
 with it , the cab was booked for 7.25 PM and not 6.30 PM as has been
alleged by the complainant. It is the case of the OP that the
complainant had cancelled the booking at about 7.21 PM and ,
therefore, the cab did not arrive at gate no. 7 High Court of Delhi.
So the sole question for determination is as to whether  the cab was
booked by the complainant for 6.30 PM or for 7.25 PM.
The complainant has in order to  establish his case, pointed out that
he had lodged a complaint on telephone on the same day for the non
arrival of the cab and was given complaint no. C-07352486. The OP has
not given any explanation as regards the aforesaid complaint made by
the complainant on the date of booking. The OP did not respond to the
said complaint nor refuted with the averments that the booking had
been done for 7.25 PM and had been cancelled prior to that at 7.21 PM.
The complainant has further pointed out that he had filed a written
complaint with the OP on 26.7.2014 in respect of the aforesaid
booking. Again, the said complaint was neither replied to nor its
contents refuted in any manner whatsoever. Not only this, the
complainant had also served the OP with a legal notice dated 11-8-2014
wherein he had leveled the same allegations regarding deficiency in
service on the part of the OP. This notice was duly served upon the OP
but was neither refuted nor replied to. Courts on numerous occasions
have held that where serious allegations are leveled against a noticee
who does not refute the allegations by means of a reply and simply
ignores the notice , a presumption may be drawn against him that the
allegations leveled in the notice were true. (See Kalu Ram VsSita Ram
1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Polis Travels vsSumitKalra&Another 98
(2002) DLT 573 (DB). .The present case is one where such a presumption
is required to be drawn in favour of the complainant and it has to be
held that the averments made in the notice/ complaint are true. The OP
on its part has not led any cogent evidence to rebut the above
presumption. The OP has relied upon a  document Annexure R2 which is a
screen shot of the booking made by it at its end. This document shows
that Mr. Amitabh with caller number 9818200333 had booked a cab on
7.10.2014 at 6.21 PM. The cab had to pick up the caller at 7.25PM. It
further shows that the booking was cancelled at 7.21 PM.  This call
was taken by one Gulshan with no. 42242. The OP has not filed an
affidavit of the said Amitabh in order to support its plea that the
booking was made for  7.25 PM.  Since, it was the specific case of the
OP that its cab was booked for 7.25 PM rather than for 6.30 PM, it was
imperative on the part of the OP to have examined this person on
record. The failure of the OP to do so is fatal to its defence.
Moreover, this document itself appears to be suspect. A perusal of the
document shows that  Under the Head “ Trip Completion Details”, it
gives the start time as 16.8.2014 at 3.41 PM and AMR time as 7.10.2014
at 6.22 PM.  It appears that this document has been fabricated. This
fact is further fortified by the fact that the complainant had made
calls to the OP at 6.35 PM, at 6.59 PM and at 7.17 PM. This calls were
made since the cab had not arrived at the scheduled time. If the
scheduled time of the arrival  of the cab was 7.25 PM , there was no
occasion for the complainant to make the aforesaid calls to the OP.
Further under the scheme of operation under which the OP is licensed
to operate , it is enjoined on the OP  to maintain a complaint book
and to forward any complaint received by it to the licensing authority
under section 8. The OP has failed to state as to whether it had
resorted to the said procedure. We are., therefore, convinced that the
story put forth by the complainant gives the true account of the facts
which had taken place on the relevant date of booking. We are
convinced that the complainant had booked the cab for 6.30 PM and had
waited for its arrival for almost 50 minutes before cancelling the
same. We, therefore, hold the OP deficient in rendering service to the
complainant and direct it as under:
1.Pay to the complainant a sum of rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in
service and as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date
of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on
the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply
with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution
of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
    File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................