Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/140/2014

P.Muthukumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fast Track Call Taxi - Opp.Party(s)

G.Karthikeyan

05 Nov 2019

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 01.04.2014

                                                                               Date of Disposal : 05.11.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.140/2014

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 05^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

                                 

P. Muthukumar,

S/o. Mr. S. Pitchai,

Having Office at:-

No.7, Cheyyur Parthasarathy Street,

Nelvayal Road,

Perambur,

Chennai – 600 011.                                                        .. Complainant. 

                                                                                                 ..Versus..

 

 

Fast Track Call Taxi,

Represented by its Managing Director & Founder

Mr. Ridsun C Ambigapathy,

No.234/236, Arcot Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant      : M/s. G. Karthikeyan & others

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

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards compensation for damages and mental agony with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint to till the date of payment and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he is an advocate booked a Tempo Traveler with the opposite party over phone on 05.11.2013 for attending a marriage function on 06.11.2013 along with other Advocates and their family members altogether 13 persons.  The complainant submits that the opposite party promised to provide the vehicle on 06.11.2013 at 18.15 hours with the 7 hours package and the amount fixed as Rs.1,670/-.  The opposite party also confirmed the request and issued booking ID No.1158 through SMS on 05.11.2013 at 21.16 hours to the complainant’s mobile No.9551043580.  The complainant submits that on 06.11.2013 at 17.30 hours, when the complainant called the opposite party over phone to remind them to send the vehicle.  The opposite party stated that the vehicle will come soon.  Thereafter, at about 17.40 hours, one of the staff of the opposite party called the complainant and stated that the Tempo Traveler vehicle is not available with them.  The complainant states that the marriage was at Ponneri and the complainant should travel from Perambur to Ponneri it would take atleast 1½ hours to reach Ponneri.  The complainant submits that since the opposite party cancelled the confirmation in the last minute, the complainant made alternative arrangement with great difficulty through NTL Call Taxi at 20.00 hours and reached the marriage hall around 21.45 hours. By that time, the entire function was over and returned to Perambur at 24.00 hours in the late night.  Thereby, they are not able to work on the next day.  The children were also not able to go to school due to sleepless night and tiredness.  The complainant issued notice dated:28.11.2013 claiming  a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-.  Even after receipt of notice, the opposite party has not sent any reply.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

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

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that this complaint is filed by the complainant on behalf of an unidentified person without impleading them is not maintainable.  The complainant cannot seek compensation for unidentified the complainant’s who are not before the Consumer Forum.  The opposite party admits that the request was made by the complainant through phone and ID No.1158 dated:05.11.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  The opposite party states that the complainant booked a tempo traveller and due ID No.1158 dated:05.11.2013 was assigned to the complainant for 07.00 hours package and the pickup time is 18.15.  Since the non-availability of tempo traveller, the opposite party informed it to the complainant well in advance.  The opposite party states that the suggestions of alternative vehicle to the complainant but the same was not accepted by the complainant.  As the reasons were already explained at the time of cancellation, the opposite party did not give any reply to the complainant’s legal notice dated:28.11.2013.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the 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 & Ex.A2 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards compensation for damages and mental agony and cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

The complainant filed his written argument.  Heard both parties.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is an advocate booked a Tempo Traveler with the opposite party over phone on 05.11.2013 for attending a marriage function on 06.11.2013 along with other Advocates and their family members altogether of 13 persons.  But the complainant has not given all the 13 persons names except himself.   The complainant also has not produced any document to prove that all the 13 persons willingness to attend the marriage function.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party promised to provide the vehicle on 06.11.2013 at 18.15 hours with the 7 hours package and the amount fixed as Rs.1,670/-  The opposite party also confirmed the request and issued booking ID No.1158 through SMS on 05.11.2013 at 21.16 hours to the complainant’s mobile No.9551043580 which is admitted by the opposite party in his written version.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 06.11.2013 at 17.30 hours, when the complainant called the opposite party over phone to remind them to send the vehicle.  The opposite party stated that the vehicle will come soon.  Thereafter, at about 17.40 hours, one of the staff of the opposite party called the complainant and stated that the Tempo Traveler vehicle is not available with them which caused great inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant because the marriage was at Ponneri and from Perambur to Ponneri atleast 1½ hours required for travelling.  Further the contention of the complainant is that since the opposite party cancelled the confirmation in the last minute, the complainant made alternative arrangement with great difficulty through NTL Call Taxi at 20.00 hours and reached the marriage hall around 21.45 hours. By that time, the entire function was over and returned to Perambur at 24.00 hours in the late night.  Thereby, they are not able to work on the next day.  The children were also not able to go to school due to sleepless night and tiredness proves the deficiency in service and hardship.   The complainant issued notice dated:28.11.2013 as per Ex.A1 claiming  a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-.  Even after receipt of notice, the opposite party has not sent any reply.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case.  

6. The learned Counsel for complainant the decision reported in:-

CDJ 1957 SC 093

Civil Appeal No.24/1954

Between

Union of India

-Versus-

M/s. Charman Lal Loona & Co.

Held that

        “It is necessary to appreciate clearly the distinction between the two classes of contracts where the consideration is either executed or executor.  An executed consideration consists of an act for a promise.  It is the act which forms the consideration ……..   No contract is formed unless and until the act is performed, e.g., the payment for a railway ticket, but the act stipulated for exhausts the consideration, so that any subsequent promise, without further consideration, is merely a nudum pactum ……….   In an executed consideration the liability is outstanding on one side only; it is a present as opposed to a future consideration.

          In an executory consideration, the liability is outstandinig on both sides.  It is in fact a promise for a promise; one promise is bought by the other ………..  The contract is concluded as soon as the promises are exchanged.  In mercantile contracts this is by far the most common variety.  In other words, a contract becomes binding on the exchange of valid promises, one being the consideration for the other”.

&

Supreme Court of India

Appeal (civil) No.3096/2005

Between

M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd.

-Versus-

M/s. Veljan Hydrair Ltd.

Held that

          “It is no doubt true that ‘service’ for purposes of CP Act does not include rendering of service free of charge.  There the contract for transportation is for a consideration (freight charge), the mere fact that such consideration is not paid, would not make the service ‘free of charge’.   There is difference between contract without consideration, and contract for consideration, which is not paid”.

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that this complaint is filed by the complainant on behalf of an unidentified person without impleading them is not maintainable.  The amount of compensation cannot be claimed for unidentified persons before this Consumer Forum is not disputed.  But the complainant himself booked a tempo traveller and ID No.1158 dated:05.11.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant booked a tempo traveller and due ID No.1158 dated:05.11.2013 was assigned to the complainant for 07.00 hours package and the pickup time is 18.15.  Since the non-availability of tempo traveller, the opposite party informed the complainant’s cancellation of booking without considering the hardship at the late hours of booking for journey proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the suggestions of alternative vehicle to the complainant was rejected.   The claim of the complainant is imaginary and exorbitant.  But it is very clear from the records that the cancellation of booking at the crucial time shall cause great inconvenience resulting mental agony, hardship etc.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

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 05^th day of November 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	28.11.2013	Copy of legal notice to the opposite party
Ex.A2	29.11.2013	Copy of acknowledgement card

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT