Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/155/2014

Mr.G.Mani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fast Track Call Taxi - Opp.Party(s)

N.Maheshwaraiah

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 26.03.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 03.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.155/2014

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 03^RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

Mr. G. Mani,

S/o. Mr. M. Gopal,

Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer,

Chief Electrical Engineer’s Office,

Southern Railway,

Chennai – 600 003.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                   

 

       ..Versus..

 

M/s. Fast Track Call Taxi (P) Ltd.,

Rep by its Managing Directro,

No,234/236, Arcot Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                  ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. N. Maheswaraiah

Counsel for opposite party   :  M/s. V. Balaji & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.6,802/- being the amount spent by the complainant for hire another vehicle along with interest 12% p.a. from the date of complaint and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he booked a Tempo Traveller of the opposite party on 31.08.2013 for collecting Question and answer papers from Central Railway station to GKM Engineering College to Tambaram on 31.08.2013 for the purpose of conducting examination on 01.09.2013.   The request of the complainant was made through phone and was registered by the opposite party and assigned ID No.148 dated:31.08.2013.   The opposite party also assured that the vehicle would be sent to the complainant residence at 4 a.m. on 01.09.2013 without fail.   Further the complainant submits that on 01.09.2013, at about 4’O Clock in the morning, the opposite party informed the complainant over phone that the opposite party could not spare any vehicle for the trip already confirmed by the complainant.  Further the complainant submits that he forced to engage emergency arrangement to carry out the questions and answer paper expending huge amount of Rs.6,802/-.  Thereafter, the complainant issued notice dated:02.09.2013 but the opposite party did not respond or sent any reply and again the complainant sent another remainder dated:22.10.2013 stating that if they fail to compensate within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter for the loss incurred by the complainant, will take necessary action before the court of law.   But the opposite party fails to reply nor comply the demand of the complainant till date.   The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.   Hence this complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party states that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The opposite party further state that Ex.A3 & Ex.A5 shows very clearly that the complainant on behalf of Southern Railway availed the services without any approval from the Southern Railway.  Further the opposite party state that the complainant booked  the vehicle though phone without any payment and obtained ID No.148 dated:31.08.2013 and it is a 12.00 hours package from 4.15 am on 01.09.2013.   The Tempo Traveller seat capacity is 12 + 1.  Since, there is non availability of Tempo Travellers in the early hours of 01.09.2013, the same was informed to the complainant well in advance.   The opposite party took much effort to provide service at the earliest hour to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.   Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite party. 

 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,802/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant entitled a sum of Rs.50,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The complainant filed his written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he booked a Tempo Traveller of the opposite party on 31.08.2013 for collecting Question and answer papers from Central Railway station to GKM Engineering College to Tambaram on 31.08.2013 for the purpose of conducting examination on 01.09.2013.   The request of the complainant was made through phone and was registered by the opposite party and assigned ID No.148 dated:31.08.2013.   The opposite party also assured that the vehicle would be sent to the complainant residence at 4 a.m. on 01.09.2013 without fail is admitted.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on 01.09.2013, at about 4’O Clock in the morning, the opposite party informed the complainant over phone that the opposite party could not spare any vehicle for the trip already confirmed by the complainant without any reason which caused great mental agony.  The cancellation of booking and non providing the Tempo Traveller is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Then the complainant, was forced to engage emergency arrangement to carry out the questions and answer paper expending huge amount of Rs.6,802/- as per Ex.A3 & Ex.A4.  Thereafter, the complainant issued notice as per Ex.A1, since the opposite party turned deaf ears, the complainant issued remainder as per Ex.A2 for that also, the opposite party has not sent any reply.   Hence the complainant was constrained to filed this case claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Ex.A3 & Ex.A5 shows very clearly that the complainant on behalf of Southern Railway availed the services without any approval from the Southern Railway.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant booked  the vehicle though phone without any payment and obtained ID No.148 dated:31.08.2013 and it is a 12.00 hours package from 4.15 am on 01.09.2013.   The Tempo Traveller seat capacity is 12 + 1.  Since, there is non availability of Tempo Travellers in the early hours of 01.09.2013, the same was informed to the complainant well in advance.   Even after taking much more efforts to provide service to the complainant at the earliest hours, the opposite party was not able to provide Tempo Traveller to the complainant.   There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party because the non availability of Tempo Traveller at the early hours caused the cancellation of booking which was informed at the earliest point of time.  

7.     The complainant also has not paid any amount towards booking of Tempo Traveller as per the citation filed by the opposite party which reads as follows:

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.3338 OF 2016

 

Between

Narendra Nath Mishra

-Versus-

M/s. Vaishnavi Architecht & Engg. Pvt. Ltd & others

 

Held that

 

          “The State Commission has also affirmed the order of district  forum and it is clear that State commission has also not found the complainant to be a consumer.  In fact, consumers were the wife ansd son of the complainant who have not filed any complaint and they have also no given any General Power of Attorney to the complainant.  The arguments of the learned Counsel in respect of the complainant being a beneficiary as per the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d)(ii), it is seen that the beneficiary has to avail the services with the approval of the person paying for the agreed consideration.  No such document has been filed in the present case to show that such approval was given to the complainant by the purchasers of the flats from the OP.  Thus, in my view, the complainant is not covered as a beneficiary under this definition to be a consumer”.

proves that there is no deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 03^rd day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	02.09.2013	Copy of letter by the complainant along with acknowledgement card
Ex.A2	22.10.2013	Copy of reminder letter by the complainant
Ex.A3	31.08.2013	Copy of bill for Rs.1,402/-
Ex.A4	01.09.2013	Copy of bill for Rs.5,200/-
Ex.A5	10.09.2013	Copy of statement of expenditure

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT