BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 106 of 2018.

                                      Date of Institution:        29.8.2018

                                      Date of Decision:           18.3.2021

Anirudh son of Sh. Lalit Aggarwal, H.No. 149, Neem Chowk, near Anekshetra, New Bazar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

         …..Complainant.

                                             Versus

1.     Manager, Paytm F1 office, F-44, Udhyog Marg, F Block, Sector 6, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301.

2.     Manager, RSRTC Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chaumu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302001.

3.     General manager, Haryana roadway bus office, new bus stand near radha swami ashram, Bhiwani 127021.

…..Opposite Parties.

               Complaint under Section 12 & 13 of the

                     Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -   Mr. Nagender Singh, President.

                Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

               Sh. Bhuvnesh Makhija, Adv. for the OP No.1.

               Representative on behalf of OP No.3.

               OP No 2 already exparte.

ORDER:-

           Brief facts of the present complaint are that in order to take the LLB exam, the complainant had booked bus ticket from Bhiwani to Jhunjunu through paytm (online) on 24.6.2018. It is submitted that the ticket was booked through Paytm having tickets I’d P7UFEO, Ticket Order ID No. 5434344082 and the ticket price was fixed to Rs. 144/- with a discount applicable to all new customers by PAYTM. It is further submitted that when the complainant reached to bus stand Bhiwani at 6.25 A.M, no bus of Rajasthan Roadways was available there. After waiting sufficient and at 7.49 AM, the complainant immediately contacted Paytm Call Centre and they told to the complainant that you can perform your journey by any alternate vehicle i.e. private car, taxi etc and amount paid by you will be returned back in your Paytm wallet. It is averred that bus of Rajasthan Roadways was not available in Bhiwani Bus Stand at 6.45 a.m. and this fact can be confirmed from the G.M. Roadways. It is further submitted that timely facilities were not provided to the customer by the PAYTM company. The complainant was kept out of the facilities and the complainant had to pay charges for hiring the taxi. Accordingly, it is averred by the complainant that the respondent Paytm company has cheated the complainant and prayed that as the respondent tried to deprive the complainant for examination and the company refused to pay the taxi charges of Rs. 2800/-paid by him and further prayed that the respondent be directed to make the payment of Rs. 40,000/-to the complainant as penalty and to pay compensation and the litigation besides further directions against the respondent No. 1 to cancel their panel of Rajasthan Roadways.

2.            Upon notice, the OP Nos. 1 & 3 appeared and they filed their separate written statements. However, the respondent No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.10.2018 due to non-appearance before this Commission.

                    The OP No. 1 while filing the reply denied the allegations of complainant mentioned in the complaint.  It is averred by the OP No.1 that he is the owner of the website www.paytm.com along with the Mobile Application named “ Paytm”. It is averred that OP No.1 interalia provides payment gateway, online payment solutions through its above said website and facilitates listings/ bookings by aggregators directly its merchants.  It’s services includes but not limited to flight, bus, hotel and car hire booking. It is further submitted that OP No. 1 is an “intermediary” as defined under Section 2 (w) of information Technology Act, 2000.  The case of complainant stands on plinth that he booked one RSRTC Bus ticket to travel from Bhiwani to Jhunjhunu vide order ID No. 5434344082 worth Rs. 144/-. It is submitted that OP No.1 just acts as an intermediary and his role confines to act as an intermediary in successful booking of the tickets and to make that information available to the concerned customer. As per the terms & conditions as agreed by the complainant himself at the time of booking for the tickets and which was well within the knowledge of the complainant that “Paytm is only a bus ticket agent. It does not operate buses or offers bus transport services. In order to provide a comprehensive choice of bus operators, departure times and prices to customers, Paytm has tied up with many bus operators and service providers……………Paytm’s responsibilities includes:

-issuing a valid ticket (a ticket that will be accepted by the bus  operator) for its network of bus operators,

-providing refund and support in the event of cancellation; and

-providing customer support and information in case of any    delays/inconvenience.

It is submitted that the disputed transaction being an independent transaction have no rhyme and reference with the OP No.1. OP No.1 cannot and should be held liable for any deficiency of service for the act of any third party like the opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that role of OP No.1 is restricted only towards facilitating the transaction over its website. Hence, it is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and accordingly, the respondent No. 1 prays for dismissal of complaint against OP No.1.

                The OP No.3 in the reply also denied the allegations of the complainant.  It is averred that as per the official record, there was no complaint received from the complainant in the office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani regarding the non availability of Rajasthan Roadways  bus. As per the report of Station Supervisor on dated 23.6.2018 and 24.6.2018, there was no booking of bus of Rajasthan Roadways bus on Bhiwani to Jhunjhunu/Sikar from Bhiwani Bus Stand and no Adda fees received.  OP No.3 has submitted that there is no role of answering respondent in the present complaint and the dispute is wholly in-between the complainant and OP No.1 & 2 and accordingly, prays for dismissal of complaint qua the respondent No. 3.

3.            The complainant in support of his case, has placed on record annexure C-1 to annexure C-3 and closed his evidence on dated 12.4.2019.

                On the other hand, the OP No. 1 after tendering some documents in evidence closed the evidence on 18.11.2019. The OP No. 3 also closed the evidence on 19.6.2020.

4.            We have heard the arguments of complainant appearing in person as well as the learned counsel for OP No.1 and representative appearing for OP No. 3 and gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.

        During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant and of OP No. 1 and representative appearing for OP No. 3 reiterated the contents  of the complaint as well as the replies filed by the respective OPs and further drawn the attention of this Forum/Commission towards the documents placed on record by the respective parties.

5.           We have perused the documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. After hearing arguments and going through the entire case file and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that as per para No. 4 of the written statement filed by the opposite party No.1, the case of the complainant is that he had booked one RSRTC (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation) bus ticket to travel from Bhiwani to Junjhunu vide order id 5434344082 worth Rs.144/- but at the scheduled time of departure, no such bus of RSRTC arrived at the scheduled boarding point. It is further submitted that opposite party No.1 just act as an intermediary and his role confines to act as an intermediary in successful booking of the tickets and to make that information available to the concerned customer. The same was, admittedly booked in favour of the complainant and also promptly informed to him. Availability of the seats and ensuring the journey at the stipulated time is the contractual obligations of the concerned entity, herein opposite party No.2 i.e. RSRTC (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation). As per terms and conditions as agreed by the complainant himself at the time of booking for the tickets and which was well within the knowledge of the complainant that "Payt is only a bus ticket agent. It does not operate buses or offers bus transport services". The obligation of the opposite party No.1 only extend to successful booking and in event of failure by the opposite party No.2 in providing the bus services offered by them to duly and promptly refund the amount as paid by the customer. On the other hand, opposite party No.3 in para no.5 in its reply has submitted that as per the answering respondent record there was no complaint received from the complainant in the office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani regarding the non availability of the Rajasthan Roadways bus. It is further submitted that as per report of Station Supervisor on 23.06.2018 and 24.06.2018, there was no booking of bus of Rajasthan Roadways bus from Bhiwani to Jhunjhnu/Sikar from Bhiwani Bus Stand and no Adda fees received. Meaning thereby, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation bus did not come there at the bus stop, Bhiwani on 24.06.2018 and due to which, complainant suffered inconvenience. Opposite party No.1 has placed on record terms and conditions that the Paytm's responsibilities do not include: "The bus operator's bus not departing/reaching on time".

               It is admitted by the respondent no.3 that there was no time table of the Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation from Bhiwani to Jhunjhnu/Sikar on 23.06.2018 & 24.06.2018. Meaning thereby without verification or confirmation, the paytm had booked the bus from Bhiwani to Sikar. The opposite party No.1 has booked the tickets without any confirmation from the opposite party no.2, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of paytm, due to which the complainant had suffered inconvenience and he had to spent huge amount on travelling through private vehicle. It is also observed that the travelling of complainant was urgent due to his annual exams and he had to hire the private taxi, due to non availability of bus booked by him through paytm. The complainant demanded the amount of Rs. 2700/- from the opposite party no.1 as spent by him on his journey through private cab/car on dated 24.06.2018. To prove the same, the complainant has placed on record document Annexure-C3. As such opposite party no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant.

6.            In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs. 2700/-(Rupees two thousand and seven hundred only) on account of money spent by him on his journey alongwith interest 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.08.2018 till its realization. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. Certified copies of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

             File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

Dated: - 18.3.2021

               (Shriniwas Khundia)               (Nagender Singh)

                              Member                         President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                  Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.