DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 28/02/2020   

CC/37/2020

Nixon Thomas

Cheruparambil House

Chekkinipadam, Akathethara (P.O)

Palakkad – 678 008                                               -         Complainant

(Party in person)

                                                           V/s

1. M/s JUST DIAL LIMITED

    Corporate Office, Sports Complex

    501/B, 5^th Floor, Palm Court Building-M

    Beside Goregaon, New Link Road

    Malad West, Mumbai – 400 064

2. M/s JUST DIAL LIMITED

    Branch Office, 25

    AGT Business Park, 3^rd Floor

    Avinashi Road, Coimbatore – 641 014

3. Akhil

Palakkad Agent of M/s JUST DIAL LIMITED

25, AGT Business Park, 3^rd Floor

Avinashi Road

Coimbatore – 641 014                                             -         Opposite parties

(Opposite parties 1 to 3 By Adv. Santhosh.T)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Brief pleadings of the complainant

      Complainant, who is a taxi driver purchased a new car ‘Mahendra Marazzo’ investing an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for the purpose of using it as taxi to earn livelihood for himself and his family.

          After 3 months of the purchase, the 3^rd opposite party approached the complainant introducing himself as the agent of 2^nd opposite party and told that if the complainant register his name and details of the vehicle in their website in the ‘Taxi service’ category, he would get so many engagements and that would increase his income.

          Believing these words and as requested by the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant allowed 3^rd opposite party to take photos of Registration Certificate of the car, insurance certificate, driving licence and Aadhar card for displaying in their website and handed over a cheque dated 02/12/2019 for Rs. 14,160/- towards their charge.  They promised to display the details of the vehicle in the ‘Taxi service’ category within 24 hrs.  Thereafter at the request of opposite party company, the complainant instructed the opposite party to register his taxi details in the category of ‘Taxi service’ named as ‘Abel Taxi’.  After 2 days, when the complainant checked the details in the website, he came to know that, the vehicle’s details are included in other categories such as ‘Tour operators’, car rental etc.  Since it is included in these categories, he received few calls requiring the complainant to send bus or car on rent, etc., which he was not able to do.  His request was exclusively for rendering ‘Taxi service’ for which he did not receive any engagements or call through the website of opposite parties. 

          Inspite of his repeated requests and e-mails to the opposite parties asking them to include his vehicle details under the category of ‘Taxi service’, they failed to do it. 

          Because of the inaction and inefficient service of the opposite parties, the complainant did not get any result and suffered financial loss and mental agony.  So this complaint is filed for an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 14,160/- being the charges paid by him, to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the losses suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him and the cost of the litigation together with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realization.

2.   Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.  They contended that the complainant after understanding the terms of service had availed the service from Just Dial in the name and style of ‘Abel Taxi’ by paying a service charge of Rs. 14,160/-  The complainant had opted for opposite party services under ‘travel agents’ and other categories and 3^rd opposite party requested copy of documentary proofs such as Vehicle registration copy, taxi permit copy, trip sheet, etc., to add the category of ‘Taxi service’ in his contact.

          The opposite party had communicated the complainant that category of ‘Taxi service’ would only be provided once the trip sheet is given; but the complainant failed to provide it and accordingly the category of ‘Taxi service’ was not added in the contact.  The customer receipt, invoice and the e-mails sent to the complainant has only travel agents and other categories and does not have any taxi service category would substantiate the fact that ‘Taxi service’ was never a part of services opted by the complainant and complainant is making an allegation at a belated stage with malafide intention to extort money from the opposite party company.  Inspite of repeated requests from company’s representative, the complainant failed to share the trip sheet of his Taxi business making it impossible for the opposite party to add ‘Taxi service’ category.  They have provided adequate services by providing total number of 172 enquiries.  The complainant has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate mental and financial loss.

          Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act as the complainant had availed the services of opposite party for commercial purpose and earning profit.

          Opposite party has provided due service to the complainant for the consideration received and there is no deficiency in service on their part and they are not liable to refund the amount.  The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties and the complaint has to be dismissed.   

3.   From the pleadings of both parties the following points arise for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs if any, as cost and compensation. 

4.   Complainant filed proof affidavit.  Opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exhibits B1 to B3 marked from his side.  Opposite party filed notes of argument.  Heard.

5.  Point No: 1

      Complainant in his affidavit stated that he purchased the vehicle for using it as ‘taxi’ for earning livelihood for himself and his family.  Eventhough the opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a Consumer as he is using the vehicle for commercial purpose, they did not adduce any evidence. In the absence of contra evidence we accept the complainant’s contention.  Point No: 1 is decided in favour of the complainant.     

6.  Points No: 2 to 4

      Complainant’s grievance is that he availed the service of the opposite parties on the assurance given by them that, if he include his vehicle details in the website of ‘Just Dial’ under the category of ‘Taxi service’, he will get more engagements and his income will be increased.  Believing these words, he provided the vehicle details and paid an amount of Rs.14,160/- as service charge.  But they included the vehicle details in other categories like ‘Tour Operators’, Car Rental, etc.  So he got calls in relation to that and did not get any call for ‘taxi service’.  Inspite of his repeated requests, the opposite parties failed to change the details into the category of ‘Taxi service’.       

7.   Opposite party’s contention is that the complainant had opted for OP services under travel agents and other categories ‘Taxi Service’ was never a part of service opted by the complainant.  The opposite parties requested for copy of documentary proofs including vehicle registration copy, taxi permit copy, trip sheet, etc. to add the category of Taxi service in his contact.  Inspite of their repeated communications to the complainant that category of Taxi services would only be provided if he submits the Trip sheet, the complainant did not provide the trip sheet.  Hence the category of ‘Taxi service’ was not added in the contract.          

8.   The opposite party in the affidavit states that the complainant had opted OP services under travel agents and other various categories and the same was activated and they provided the service as per the terms.  They produced the document showing it which is marked as Ext. B2.  Ext.B3 is also the same document.  Further they say that Taxi service category was not activated since the complainant had failed to submit the requested documents.  In addition to the documents such as Aadhar, copy of vehicle registration and copy of taxi permit, they requested to provide trip sheet which he did not give. 

9.   The opposite parties admit that the complainant had submitted all other documents required for uploading his vehicle details in their website and they have uploaded the details.  The reason stated for the non-inclusion of Taxi service does not appear to be reasonable.  Their first stand was that the complainant did not opt ‘Taxi service’ to be included in their website.  Later they concluded that taxi service is not included as the complainant did not produce trip sheet as required by him.  These two statements appears to be contradictory and they did not adduce any evidence to show their demand to the complainant for providing trip sheet. 

10. The pre-requisite of providing a ‘trip sheet’ for adding the complainant in the ‘Taxi service’ category appears to be a flimsy reason.  Including the complainant’s name in other categories is of no use to him.  The opposite parties did not provide the service required by the complainant even after payment of their fees and repeated follow-ups.  So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

11. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties had caused financial loss to the complainant as he did not receive any calls relating to ‘taxi service’.  The complainant also suffered mental agony because of the conduct of the opposite parties and they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.

      In the result, the complaint is allowed.

1. We direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 14,160/- being the fees collected by them together with interest at the rate of 10% from 28/02/2020 (date of the complaint) till realization.
2. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 17^th day of March, 2023.

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President                                              

                                                        Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:

Ext. B1 - Authorisation Letter dated 09/03/2020.

Ext. B2 - Customer Receipt dated 02/12/2019.

Ext. B3 - Tax invoice dated 13/12/2019.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost- Rs. 10,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.