Date of Filing 05.11.2012

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 25.03.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                          …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

               THIUR.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, (ICWA), BL.,                                                                     ……MEMBER-II

RBT/CC.No.41/2024

THIS MONDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

Mr.K.L.Ramakrishnan,

No.193, IV Main Road,

Mahaveer Nagar,

Lawspet Pondicherry – 605 008.                                                           ......Complainant.

                                                                                   //Vs//

Fast Track Call Taxi,

Rep. by its Manager,

116/77, Vellala Street,

Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.                                                     ……Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                  : M/s.V.Yurendrakumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                              : M/s.V.Balaji, Advocate.

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.425/2018 and transferred to this commission by the administrative order in RC.No.J1/3145/2023 dated 09.11.2023 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as RBT/CC.No.41/2024 and this complaint coming before us finally on 19.03.2024 in the presence of M/s.V.Yurendrakumar, counsel for the complainant  and M/s.V.Balaji,  counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with regard to the service rendered by them along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to repay the cost of the lost booked ticket of Rs.18.920/- and to repay a sum of Rs.31,000/- cost of the 2 Air tickets for travel and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Aggrieved by the service rendered by the opposite party the present complaint has been filed.

3. It was the case of the complainant that on 13.07.2012 he booked a Fast Track Call Taxi with the opposite party to travel from T.Nagar, Chennai to Meenambakkam Airport.  The complainant was given a booking No.12574 and was assured that the taxi would come at 8.30pm to his residence.  The complainant’s flight to Singapore was scheduled at 10.45pm on 13.07.2012.  As the opposite party’s call taxi did not arrive at 8.30pm after waiting for 5 minutes the complainant called the opposite party.  After a long delay the opposite party promised to do the needful and call back.  Complainant received a call from one Mr. Ravi Taxi driver of the opposite party that he would reach the complainant’s place within 10 minutes.  However, the taxi No.TN-09 BM 4736 came only at 09.10pm.  Despite best driving efforts made by the opposite party’s car driver the complainant could reach the airport only at 09.55pm.  However, the complainant was denied boarding and resultantly missed his flight and lost the booking amount.  The complainant tried the next available flight and after a lot of explanations on his urgent need to be in Singapore the next day i.e., 14.07.2012, Air India issued tickets to the complainant at a whopping cost of Rs.31,000/-.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint has been filed for the relief as mentioned above.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1^st opposite party:-

4. The opposite party filed version admitting the booking done by the complainant.  However, it was stated by him that the vehicle bearing ID No.1139 driven by one Mr.Narasimhan was allotted at 07.40 hours to pick up at 8.15pm.  Unfortunately the vehicle tyre got punctured and it could not be rectified immediately. On receipt of information from the complainant the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 09 BM 4736 was arranged and the concerned driver picked up the complainant at 8.42pm.  Inspite of heavy traffic congestion and Metro Rail Project work the driver dropped the complainant at Meenambakkam Air Port at 09.45pm. As per Ex.A1 the check in time was mentioned as 07.45pm but the complainant booked the pickup time at only 08.30pm.  Therefore the complainant himself was negligent in booking the pickup time and thus he ought to have booked the vehicle well before 6.30pm.  The vehicle’s tyre puncture was beyond the control of the opposite party.  Thus stating that they are not liable for any damage caused to the complainant they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A3 were submitted. The opposite party filed proof affidavit but no documents were marked.

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether the opposite party had committed any deficiency in service in the matter of booking made by the complainant from his residence to reach the Airport and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?

2)    If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

6. Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and the opposite party.

7. The factum of booking taxi by the complainant was not denied and also the opposite party’s vehicle reaching the complainant’s place at 9.10pm was not disputed.  As per Ex.A1 in the flight confirmation ticket as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, the checking time was mentioned clearly as 13.07.2012 at 7.45pm. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle dropped the complainant at Meenambakkam Airport at 09.45pm.  The complainant himself pleaded that despite best driving efforts the complainant could not reach the Airport in time.  It is the case of the opposite party that the car driver allotted by the opposite party for pickup of the complainant could not reach the complainant’s destination in time due to unfortunate tyre puncture.  However, it is established that alternate arrangement was made immediately. The opposite party did not deny that there was 17 minutes delay in pickup the complainant.  However, when it is found that even as per the complainant’s document the checking time was 07.45pm the complainant prudently ought to have booked the Taxi for an earlier pickup time for the heavy traffic congestion and Metro rail Project work in the city, complainant’s ignorance could not be considered as a valid defence. Therefore when the opposite party had arranged an alternate pickup immediately and had made their best efforts to drop the complainant in their destination in time we could not attribute any deficiency in service on their part.  If at all the opposite party had failed to send any alternate vehicle within a reasonable time, they could be said to have committed deficiency in service.  This commission is of the opinion that the complainant ought to have booked the Taxi for pickup to the Airport at an earlier point of time to avoid any unexpected eventualities.  In such facts and circumstances we are of the view that no deficiency in service was proved against the opposite party by the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

8. As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, he is not entitled any relief from the opposite party. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 25^th day of March 2024.

      -Sd-                                                    -Sd-                                                          -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

-Nil-

      -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                  -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER-I                                      PRESIDENT