Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/7/2016

M/s.Shilpa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.OLA CABS - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Madhu Prakash

06 Jan 2023

ORDER

                                        Date of Complaint Filed : 09.12.2015

                                        Date of Reservation      : 26.12.2022

                                        Date of Order               : 06.01.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.07/2016

FRIDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

Mrs.Shilpa,

D/o. Mr. Menon,

No.H-133/1,34^th Cross Street,

Besant Nagar,

Chennai – 600 090.                                                                                                                        ... Complainant              

..Vs..

OLA Cabs,

Rep by its Senior Manager,

No.53, N P Developers,

Ground Floor,

Ekkaduthangal,

Guindy East,

Chennai – 600 032.                                                                                                                      ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          :  M/s. Madhu Praksah

Counsel for the Opposite Party       :  M/s. S. Suresh Kumar

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to take action against the driver Hari Babu, pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the resultant mental agony and pain caused by the Opposite Party and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party along with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant booked a cab on 25.08.2015 around 9.53 am to pick up the Complainant from North Boag Road, T Nagar and drop her at Besant Nagar. The Complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party had booked the Complainant’s request and gave CRN. No.116609227 and the driver name as Mr.Haribabu. The Opposite Party’s vehicle came to the spot on 25.08.2015 around 9.56 am for picking up the Complainant.  The Opposite Party’s driver Mr.Haribabu started the meter reading in advance. When the Complainant questioned the driver as to how the meter was switched on without her consent the Opposite Party’s driver has not given her any proper reply. The Complainant was in the street with  two children so she had no option but to board the vehicle. The Complainant instructed the driver to go via Dr. B.N Road to the Holy Angels Junction where the Complainant had to pick her friend. The Complainant’s 2^nd child was four month old and she was feeding her child. The Opposite Party’s driver started looking through the rear view mirror. The Complainant submitted that the cab reached near Holly Angels junction and the Opposite Party’s driver stopped the cab and started looking behind. The Complainant requested the driver not to turn behind as she was feeding and requested the driver to switch on the AC till the waiting time but the Opposite Party’s driver refused to switch on the AC and started looking at her. The Complaint felt uncomfortable and immediately tried to get out of the car but the Opposite Party’s driver forced to stay in the car. The Complainant’s friend reached the spot and helped her to let out of the car, but the driver started behaving badly. Immediately she tried to call the customer care to report about the driver’s behavior but the driver pulled the mobile from the Complainant and holded her hand very tightly. The Complainant spoke to the higher official of the Opposite Party and hence the driver handed over the mobile to the Complainant. The Complainant immediately called another taxi from the Opposite Party concern and left the place. The Complainant  had visited the Opposite Party’s office and gave a complaint about the issue, but the Complainant had not received any update from the Opposite Party as to what action was taken against the driver. The Complainant issued a notice to the Opposite Party on 17.11.2015 and the Opposite Party received a notice on 18.11.2015.  As the Opposite Party had not taken any step to resolve the grievance of the Complainant this complaint is being filed.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Opposite Party is Ms.ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd running business with a brand name OLA. The process is connecting the commuters to the nearest 3^rd Party Transport Service Providers (Operators or drivers) through its Online Transport Facilitation Platform (Mobile Application) called OLA. The operation of the said mobile application by the commuters is governed by the terms and conditions agreed by the commuters to use the application at the time of creation of new account in the said application which is nothing but a contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party submitted that it was wrong to state that the driver who picked up the Complainant is not Opposite Party’s driver and never employed with the Opposite Party. Further on enquiry made by the Opposite Party the said driver has denied the said complaint and also on patent verification of the time of booking and the time of starting the meter showed that there was no such incident happened. If she felt that the meter has been wrongly switched on before the travel, she might have cancelled the immediately  citing the reasons and have booked a new one from OLA app or any other similar service providers to avail a different car within a few minute but she has not chosen to do. From which it can be easily inferred that no such thing happened. Further the Complainant’s allegation that the driver was looking at rear view mirror to see her feeding the child is false. On the complaint from the Complainant, the Opposite Party has made an immediate enquiry with the said driver. It is submitted that after one kilometer from boarding the cab the Complainant requested the 3^rd Party owned cab diver to stop the cab for 5 minutes. He informed that there is no such provision except in case of unavoidable circumstances. Pursuant to repeated requests by the Complainant 3^rd Party owned cab driver agreed to stop the vehicle for 5 minutes only and stepped down. When the car was stopped the air condition was switched off as the engine was stopped. The Complainant requested the 3^rd Party owned cab driver to switch on the air conditioning of the vehicle as she wanted to feed her baby and the 3^rd party owned cab driver disagreed for the same as he cannot put the engine running for the said purpose and politely informed the Complainant that the air-conditioning cannot be turned on when the vehicle is not in motion. On the enquiry by the Opposite Party the driver deposed that he has not indulged in any such incident. He might have used the rear view mirror to see the vehicle coming behind his car which is a reflect action and not intentional. Even though there is no bad antecedent and having unblemished records on the part of the driver, considering the nature of complaint the Opposite Party in order to avoid any such complaint has given strict warning and terminated the contract and removed from its platform. The Opposite Party submitted that because the 3^rd Party owned cab driver refused to switch on air-condition of the vehicle the Complainant decided to make alternative arrangements for travel. It is submitted that the Complainant got down from the cab and she did not pay the fare. If the said incident was really happened the Complainant might have called the Police to complaint about this incident which was criminal in nature. But she has not chosen to do so. From this it can be easily inferred that no such thing happened. Further as per the Terms and Conditions' as stated supra the Opposite Party submits that the Company only acts as an intermediary between the OLA software user and the 3rd party owned taxi/cab service providers. Even assuming the actions of the driver as alleged by the Complainant as true it is purely out of his own will and malice and the Company cannot be held liable for allegation which have criminal liability. Further the allegation made are criminal in nature which does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The Opposite party has enquired with the 3^rd party owned cab driver as. stated above and he was given a strict warning. He was also informed that a second incident of this nature would lead to his termination of the contract. It is submitted that the Complainant was not satisfied with the action taken and she demanded termination of the 3^rd party owned cab driver and she threatened that she would report this incident to the media unless her demands were met. Whenever the office of the Opposite Party call her to discuss the issue the Complainant informed that she did not want to discuss anything over the phone. She also said she wanted to directly walk into the office and discuss with a higher authority. To keep the customers in good humour the Opposite party went and informed the Complainant that the 3^rd party cab will be terminated from their network and apologies were also conveyed to the Complainant. The Complainant refused to accept the same and told more action is required to be taken. It is submitted that the Opposite party has terminated the vehicle and retrieved device from the 3^rd party owned cab driver and it is the maximum possible action the Opposite party can be taken against the 3^rd party owned cab driver. The Opposite party submitted that it does not own any cabs or employ any drivers of the 3^rd party owned taxis/cabs. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Complainant submitted her Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3. The Opposite Parties submitted its Written Version and Proof Affidavit of Opposite Party was closed.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

                The contention of the Complainant is that on 25.08.2015 around 9.53 a.m she booked a cab with the Opposite Party to pick her from T Nagar and drop at Besant Nagar. The Opposite Party after booking gave her CRN No.1166 09227 and the driver name as Mr. Haribabu. Further submitted that the driver Mr. Haribabu started the meter already before the commencement of travel and as she had two children she had no option to board the vehicle.  The Complainant submitted that while she was feeding her four months old child the driver started looking her through the rear view mirror and he refused to switch on the AC during the waiting time to pick up her friend at the Holly Angel’s Junction. The driver had behaved badly with the Complainant and hence the Complainant spoke to the higher officials of the Opposite Party and took another taxi from the Opposite Party and immediately left the place. When the Complainant visited the Opposite Party office and gave a complaint, they assured of taking disciplinary action against the driver Haribabu. As the Complainant has not received any update from the Opposite Party about what action has been taken against the said driver Haribabu, which shows the incapability of the Opposite Party in giving proper service to the customers.

        The Opposite Party contended that they are running business in the brand name Ola, connecting the commuters to the nearest Third Party Transport Service Providers (Operators or Drivers) through its Online Transport Facilitation Platform (Mobile Application) called Ola, which is governed by the terms and conditions. It is further averred that on verification of the time of booking and the time of starting meter showed that no such incident of starting the meter already before the Complainant started had happened. On complaint from the Complainant the Opposite Party had made immediate enquiry with the driver, who submitted that the Complainant after one kilometer from boarding the cab requested the driver to stop the cab for five minutes. Though there is no such provision except in rare and unavoidable circumstances due to repeated request of the Complainant the driver agreed to stop the vehicle for five minutes only and step down. When the car was stopped the Air Condition switched off. The Complainant had requested the driver to switch on the Air Condition of vehicle as she wanted to feed her baby, which the cab driver disagreed  as he cannot put the engine running for the said purpose and informed the Complainant the Air Condition cannot be turned on when the vehicle is not in motion. Further it was submitted that the driver might have used the rear view mirror to see the vehicle coming behind his car which is a reflux action and not intentional. Even though there was no bad antecedent and having unblemished record on the part of the driver considering the nature of complaint the Opposite Party has given strict warning and terminated the contract and removed from its platform. It is submitted that the Complainant got down from the cab and she did not pay the fare. If the said incident really happened the Complainant might have given a complaint to the Police. The complaint does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.

        It is not in dispute that the Complainant had booked a cab on 25.08.2015 with the Opposite Party and that the driver Mr.Haribabu had picked up the Complainant from T Nagar. On the complaint made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party that the driver behaved with her badly that is looking the Complainant through the rear view mirror while she was feeding her child, though on enquiry the driver had informed that no such incident had taken place and that it was the Complainant who made him to halt for some time in the middle of the travel to pick up her friend, which is not permitted and that while the car was waiting the Complainant asked the driver to switch on the AC which could be done only when the vehicle is in motion, the Opposite Party taking in to consideration the allegation of the Complainant had warned and terminated the contract of the driver. It is seen that the Complainant had not given any Police complaint for the alleged misbehavior of the driver. The Opposite Party had acted promptly on receiving complaint from the Complainant by terminating the contract of the cab driver. The allegations made against the car driver would attract criminal liability and would not attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

        In view of the above discussions and on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case  this Commission is of the considered view that the relief sought for by the Complainant to take action against the driver (Hari Babu) for his behavior on 29.08.2015, does not fall within the ambit of this Commission, whereas when the said Hari Babu is not a party to the complaint. In the absence of any proof to show that the driver Hari Babu had misbehaved within the Complainant and the alleged failure to take action against the driver Hari Babu, though the Opposite Party contend to have acted promptly on the complaint received from the Complainant by terminating the contract of the driver, the Opposite Party not committed any unfair trade practice. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

        In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 6^th of January 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	25.08.2015	Invoice raised by the Opposite Party
Ex.A2	17.11.2015	Notice caused to the Opposite Party
Ex.A3	18.11.2015	Acknowledgment card for receiving the notice by the Opposite Party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT