Haryana

Karnal

CC/637/2022

Pawandeep Kalyana - Complainant(s)

Versus

OLA Cabs Services - Opp.Party(s)

Ankit Sahni

05 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.637 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.15.11.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 05.09.2024

 

Pawandeep Kalyana (age 30 years) son of Shri Ravinder Pal singh, resident of house no.188-C, Model Town Karnal, Haryana, Aadhaar no.5567 1561 8970.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

OLA Cabs Services, ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Shop no.48, Ground floor, Krishna Market Kalkaji-110019.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Ankit Sahni, counsel for the complainant.

Ms Pramanshi and Vikas Rana counsels for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that on 03.02.2022, complainant booked a ride of the OLA Cab from the OP for a round trip from Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi to Karnal for which they charged Rs.2659/-, vide CRN No.5972886896 for his guest. Then the female guest got into the car bearing no.DL-1ZB-7497 sent by the OP at Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi to Karnal at 7.41 a.m. and when the guest was travelling from New Delhi, in the meantime, the cab reached at Bastara Toll Plaza, NH-1, Karnal, the driver of the OP namely Ankit stopped the car at about 10.15 a.m. and about 3-4 persons entered the vehicle and the guest was forced to pay the full amount of the round trip (Mukherji-Karnal and Karnal-Mukherji) Rs.2659/- and to leave the cab, who also abused the female guest of the complainant and misbehaved with her and left her on the National Highway, which caused mental trauma, torture and harassment for unforeseen circumstances. The guest waited so long for the vehicle which caused further mental torture to the complainant. In addition to this, the driver forcefully made the guest to pay Rs.1000/- at filling station on the pretext of getting fuel in his vehicle. The invoice issued by the OP on the registered email of the complainant shows that the rider services were ended at 140 km. whereas the total billable distance is 245.19 km. Thereafter, complainant immediately contacted the OP on OLA support and narrated them the harassment suffered by them due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP, who then contacted the driver Ankit, the driver disclosed the fact to the complainant that his vehicle is financed and the persons entered in the vehicle were from the recovery department. The complainant reported the matter to the OLA support and registered a complaint vide no.305360776 telephonically as well as through email upon which the OP assured the complainant to refund his amount, but they did not do so. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant insulted in front of his female guest. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to refund the travelling bill amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of submission of claim and to pay Rs.4,25,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- on account of compensation for compromising the modesty of the female guest due to negligent act of the OP and its employee (driver) + Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, torture to the female guest as well as to the complainant + Rs.1,00,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service + Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP is a private company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Regent Insignia, # 414, 3^rd floor, 4^th Block, 17 main, 100 feet Rd. Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034, Karnataka and is registered with the Ministry of Communications and Information, Government of India as a technology company. It is engaged in the business of providing a mobile-application based technological platform by the name of OLA for aggregating point to point and other allied taxi services in India and for facilitating a connection between interested users with driver subscribers or transport service providers having a valid permit under the applicable laws. It is further pleaded that the drivers are associated with the OP in the capacity of an independent contractor i.e. on principal to principal basis and not as employee or agent of the OP. As such, even assuming and without admitting that the driver was negligent in his duties, OP cannot be held liable for the act and conduct on the part of the driver. OP does not provide driving or transportation services. The terms and conditions, which are accepted by all its users before registering on its platform, clearly state that the OP is merely an electronic platform whose services are limited to facilitation of aggregation of vehicles and does not in any manner provide transportation services. The terms and conditions also clearly state that the OP does not guarantee or provide assurance in respect of the behavior or actions of its driver/rider partners. It is further pleaded that all the drivers plying taxis on the platform of the OP are individuals and independent transport service providers who have opted to enlist themselves on the platform of the OP. These drivers operate simultaneously on multiple platforms. It is further pleaded that complainant has failed to substantiate the loss caused to him. The complainant is not entitled to any relief either for compensation or damages or cost due to firstly, driver are independent, they are not the employees of the company, secondly failure to corroborate any allegations made by him in the complaint. Thirdly, having averred to the driver as the employee of the OP, while in actuality the driver are independent contractors and the same has been clearly stated in the User Terms and Conditions published on the official website of the OP, therefore, misleading this Commission. The complainant has filed the present complaint on the basis of a narrative by a third person who has not even been named or made a party in the present proceedings. Further, complainant never reported the alleged incident to the competent authorities for investigation and action against the driver-partner and the unknown persons for the alleged abused caused to the said female guest. On the basis of the limited information provided to the OP and in accordance with its terms and conditions, OP promptly and in its bonafide, offered a refund to the complainant in order to amicably resolve the dispute but the same was not acceptable to the complainant and instead he approached this Commission, seeking an exorbitant amount of Rs.4,25,000/- as compensation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of email regarding refund dated 05.02.2022 Ex.C1, copy of Ride Details Ex.C2, copy of tax invoice dated 03.02.2022 amount of Rs.2123/- Ex.C3, copy of Tax invoice dated 03.02.2022 amount of Rs.535/- Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 28.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukirti Singh Ex.OP1/A, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP1, Resolution Ex.OP2, copy of terms and conditions (Olacab India) Ex.OP3, copy of Cab Subscription Agreement between user and its driver Ex.OP4, copy of certificate 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 08.07.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 03.02.2022, complainant booked a ride of the OLA Cab from the OP for a round trip from Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi to Karnal for his guest, for which OP charged Rs.2659/-. When the cab reached at Bastara Toll Plaza, NH-1, Karnal, the driver of the OP stopped the car and 3-4 persons entered in the vehicle and the guest was forced to pay the full amount of the round trip (Mukherji-Karnal and Karnal-Mukherji) Rs.2659/- and to leave the cab, who also abused the female guest of the complainant and misbehaved with her and left her on the National Highway, which caused mental trauma, torture and harassment for unforeseen circumstances. Complainant immediately contacted the OP but OP did not pay any heard his genuine request. The vehicle was snatched by the financer. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant insulted in front of his female guest and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the OP is merely an electronic platform whose services are limited to facilitation of aggregation of vehicles and does not in any manner provide transportation services. The terms and conditions also clearly state that the OP does not guarantee or provide assurance in respect of the behavior or actions of its driver/rider partners. All the drivers plying taxis on the platform of the OP are individuals and independent transport service providers who have opted to enlist themselves on the platform of the OP. These drivers operate simultaneously on multiple platforms. The complainant is not entitled to any relief either for compensation or damages as the drivers are not the employees of the company, the drivers are independent contractors and he also placed on file written synopsis and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, on 03.02.2022, complainant booked a Ola Cab from the OP for a round trip from Mukherji Nagar, New Delhi to Karnal and paid 2659/-. It is also admitted that the guest of the complainant left at Bastara Toll Plaza-NH-1 Karnal.

11.           OP has alleged that if the driver was negligent in his duty, OP cannot be held liable, OP does not provide driving or transportation services. OP further alleged that as per the terms and conditions, OP is merely an electrical platform, whose service are limited to facilitation of the aggregation of the vehicle and does not in any manner provide transportation services.

12.           It is the duty of the OP to check the particulars of the vehicle before providing the service to their customers. Complainant booked the ride through OP, believing a reputed company. No terms and conditions of the booking were ever explained or supplied to the complainant at the time of booking. The guest of the complainant was dropped in the way. On receipt of the information, it was the duty of the OP to make arrangements for the  complainant's guest to drop their destination. The guest of the complainant was a lady member and she was dropped in the way by the driver of the vehicle hire by the OP. The complainant booked the Ola Cab from the OP and thus the OP is liable for harassment suffered by the guest of the complainant.  Hence, the act of the OP for not providing the service as promised amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.           Complainant paid Rs.2659/- to the OP, vide invoice Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. Hence, complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and toward the litigation expenses.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2659/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid by the OP within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:05.09.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                           Member                        Member