Orissa

Cuttak

CC/168/2021

Jyotirmaya Prasad Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ola Cabs - Opp.Party(s)

self

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.168/2021

 

Jyotirmaya Prasad Behera,

S/O:Siba Prasad Behera,

At present residing at C/O:JachindranathKuanar,

Adhyayana Study Centre,

Near BaibabaMatha,Darakhapatna,

P.O:Kalyaninagar,Cuttack-753013.                                              ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Ola Cabs, represented through its CEO,

Regd. Office at 414,3^rd Floor,4^th Block,17^th Main,100 Feet Road,

       Koramangala,Bengaluru,560034..     

 

2.       Ola Cabs Head Office,

4^thFloor,Torrey Pines,

Embassy Golf Links Business Park,

Challaghatta,Bengaluru,

Karnataka-560071.

 

3.       ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd,,

Unit No.601,6^th Floor,270 UtkalSignature,Pahal,

Bhubaneswsar,Odisha.                                                        ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri DebasishNayak,President.

                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     18.10.2021

Date of Order:   17.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Self.

For the O.Ps               :          Mr.S.K.Mohanty,Adv.& Associates.

 

Sri DebasishNayak,President.              

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that the complainant had booked one Ola Cab on 15.3.21 for transporting his wife,mother-in-law,rother-in-law and his 18year old son from BaiababaMatha to Venkateswar English Medium School,Bhimbangi,Bhubaneswar.  Accordingly, a white Maruti Suzuki Dezire Car bearing Regd. No.OD-02-BQ-2383 with a driver namelySk. Chand having mobile no.8249652522 reached the destination of the complainant at 5.04 P.M.  The driver denied the brother-in-law of the complainant and also the luggage to go in the vehicle.  The driver had taken the OTP from the complainant.  According to the complainant, the behaviour of the driver was not polite.  After going for about 1 km, the driver had asked the wife of the complainant that he has been instructed to drop them 10 kms ahead of Phulnakharatowards Kakatpur.  The complainant had to pursue the said Ola vehicle and could locate it at the starting point of Kathajodi bridge.  He then had told the driver that the destination was Venkateswar English Medium School,Bhimbangi,Bhubaneswar and not the place which he thought of.  The proposal of the complainant was not accepted by the said driver and he used filthy words towards the complainant.  He demanded Rs.200/- extra amount for dropping them at the desired location.  He also asked for Rs.500/- in order to fuel in the car.  He demanded an amount of Rs.414/- and had alighted the wife and other inmates of the complainant at the National Highway No.16 and had not also given any invoice to the complainant.  The complainant had reported the mater at Madhupatna P.S and had to book another Ola Car in order todrop his family members at the desired destination.  Due to such delay, the son of the complainant had fallen ill for which the complainant has filed this case demanding compensation amountingto Rs.10,00,000/- from the O.Ps.

            The complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to establish his case.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version.  According to them, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  They admit about providing transportation to the passengers when booked and they being the service facilitator had never created any inconvenience or had notdisrespected any of the passengers.  According to them, the driver/rider are associated with the O.Ps in the capacity of independent contractors and not as employee or agent.  They had gathered information from the driver in question that on the midway of the journey, the complainant had changed the route of destination and when the driver refused for the same, the wife of the complainant had started shouting at him.  But after receiving complain from the complainant they had taken action against the said driver and had warned him.  According to them, this case is bad for non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary parties.  They have stated that complainant had not approached with clean hands and they had not committed any fault,imperfectgion,shortcomings,  or inadequacy in the quality,nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by any law for the time being inforce.  Thus, according to them, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition and the written version as available in the case record, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps & if there was practice of any unfair trade by the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

Admittedly, on the request of the complainant, the O.Ps had provided one Ola Cab on 15.3.21 bearing Regd. No.OD-02-BQ-2383 to the complainant for transportation of his inmates.  It is also not in dispute that the said Ola Cab at that time was being driven by one driver Sk. Chand who had taken Rs.460/- from the inmates of the complainant.  As per Annexure-7, which is the copy of the report of the IIC,Madhupatna P.S, it is noticed that the said driver Sk. Chand who was driving the said Ola Cab of the O.Ps  on 15.3.21 had forced the inmates of the complainant to alight from the said Ola Cab at Kathajodi River Bridge without carrying them to the destination as per the agreement.  Thus, there was indeed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps who are found to be vicariously liable for the misdeed of the Ola Cab driver Sk. Chand on the said date and time.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

Keeping in mind the above discussions and from the facts and circumstances, it is found that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is ofcourse entitled to a reasonable amount of relief as sought for.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and to bear his litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.  The order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th  day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.     

                                                                                                                                Sri DebasishNayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                         Sri SibanandaMohanty

                                                                                                                                       Member