Delhi

East Delhi

CC/979/2015

NASIR AZIZ - Complainant(s)

Versus

OLA CABS - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

               DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                 CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                    

                                                                                                 Consumer complaint no.        979/2015                                              

                                                                                                 Date of Institution               30/12/2015

                                                                                                 Order reserved on               22/03/2018

                                                                                                 Date of Order                       23/03/2018  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr.Nasir Aziz, adult   

R/o- K 101, Taj Enclave

Geeta Colony Delhi-110031………..………...………..…………….Complainant

                                                                    Vs

M/s ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd. (OLA Franchise)

521, 6^th Floor, Delhi – Jaipur Expressway 

Udhyog Vihar III, Sec. 20,

Gurgaon, Haryana 122008………………………………………………….Opponent

 

Complainant’s Advocate-              Mr Vinay Srivastav

Opponent’s Advocate-                   Mr Akshya Goel & AR 

 

Quorum     Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                    Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                    Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant a practicing advocate booked OLA cab through online portal and having their franchises/OP on 16/12/2015 at 8.10 am for his son who had to attend his exam at Jamia. An estimated fare of Rs 199-227/ was given. After reaching the destination (at Jamia, Delhi), the fare of the cab was for Rs 408/- which was paid by his son, but complainant lodged complaint (Anne. A) to OP’s main head office at Bangaluru for charging Rs 153/- extra (Anne. B&C) who replied that the actual fare would always be different than estimated fare and this actual fare would include various tax and other charges. It was stated that complainant was not satisfied with the explanation sent by OP’s head office, again booked (dummy call) a cab for the same destination on 25/12/2015 at 9 am in which estimated charges were given as Rs 225-259 and annexed screen shot as Anne. E.

Seeing callousness and unprofessionalism and deficiency in their services suffered mental agony and financial loss so filed this complaint for overcharging a sum of RS 1`25/- with Rs 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

OP submitted written statement and stated that OP operated through third party Transport Service through their online platform called OLA, but do not provide any taxi or drivers directly  to the customers. It was admitted that the said cab was booked and cab no. DL1Z5263 was booked by the complainant and destination was achieved as per the scheduled time.  It was stated that the actual fare was Rs 408/-which included local MCD, DND tax as per Govt prescribed for OPs. It was stated that the actual fare varies in peak hours, waiting charges, actual kilometers distance and time taken for ride. Hence, there was neither deficiency in services nor any unfair trade practice adopted by OP, so this complaint be dismissed.         

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder in reference to written statement of OP and denied all the replies and said that the contents of his complaint were true and correct. He also submitted his evidence on affidavit and affirmed all the facts narrated in his complaint as true and correct which were on record.

OP did not submit their evidences despite of serving notices so were preceded Ex Parte.

Even on the date of arguments, OP did not put his appearance. Arguments were heard from the complainant, file was perused and order was served.

 

We have scrutinized all the facts and evidences on record and perused complainant’s facts and written statements of OP. Though we could not find any evidence pertaining to deficiency or unfair trade practice of OP in reference to the evidences submitted by the complainant, it was seen that there was difference in estimated and actual fare, but considering facts in reply by OP that actual fare was always different which include local taxes and time consumed in travel which is a real fact. More so, complainant had relied on his dummy call and screen shots details taken on 25/12/2015 have n o relevance pertaining to this case. So complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in services of OP in reference to Estimated and Actual fare difference of OP.  

Hence, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and same deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any order to cost.

 

The order copy be sent to the parties as per the regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under regulation 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                           Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                      

 

                                                  Shri Sukhdev Singh  President