BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.
Consumer Complaint No. 100 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 12.07.2018.
Date of Decision: 18.3.2021
Suraj Chand Aggarwal s/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal r/o Manan Pana, Ward No. 24, House No. 34/39 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.
Sh. Sanjay Sheoran, Adv. for the OP No.2.
Representative on behalf of OP No.3.
ORDER:-
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had booked bus ticket from Bhiwani to Sikar online through Paytm for his first examination for 19 June 2018. It is submitted that the ticket was booked vide Paytm tickets I’d P7CFVU, Ticket PNR No. XBWNE4106151800001 Order ID No. 5377619158 and the ticket price was fixed to Rs. 192/- with a discount applicable to all new customers by PAYTM. It is further submitted that when the complainant reached the bus stand Bhiwani at 6.25 A.M, no bus of Rajasthan Roadways was available there. After waiting till 7.38 AM, the complainant immediately contacted Paytm Call Centre but they told to the complainant that you can perform your journey by any alternate vehicles i.e. private car taxi etc and amount paid by you will be returned back in your paytm wallet but later on, through their e-mail the company informed that they will pay only Rs. 1000/-for which the complainant refused to accept the same. The company harassed the complainant physically and mentally by offering small amount as compared to the inconvenience faced by the complainant. The complainant faced the same problem on 22nd June 2018 when he did not find any bus at Bhiwani bus stand at the said time and when the complainant contacted the company, they said that the company will make some other arrangements for him within 1 hour but no arrangement was made. At last, he himself booked a private car for Rs. 800/-. The respondent company did not take any action regarding PAYTM ticket No. ID-P7EKOL. Thereafter, the complainant again booked his ticket for Sikar via. PAYTM for next day i.e. 23rd June, but the result was again the same and the response from the call centre was again same. He had booked 5 tickets in total from Bhiwani to Sikkar through PAYTM but the complainant has not given any facility. Now the company has denied for giving any compensation regarding the inconvenience and harassment faced by the complainant. It is averred that on the day of his LLB exam, the company talked with him about an hour and gave false assurance only. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No. 1 paytm company, the complainant seeks directions against the respondent No.1 to pay compensation and the litigation besides further directions against the respondent No. 1 to cancel their panel of Rajasthan Roadways
2. Upon notice, all the OPs appeared and they filed their separate written statements. The OP No. 1 while filing the reply denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint of complainant. 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. It has been alleged by the complainant in his complaint that he had booked his ticket on dated 19th, 22nd, 23rd, 26th and 29th June, 2018 of RSRTC i.e. OP No.2 for his journey but it is submitted that there exists no booking for 26th and 29th of June 2018 and complainant had booked bus ticket for 19th, 22nd and 23rd of June 2018. 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 further submitted that the disputed transaction being an independent transaction have no rhyme and reference with the OP No.1. Opposite party 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 respondent No. 2 in its written statement stated that the complaint is not maintainable. There was no bus service from Bhiwani to Sikkar of the answering respondent at the time table alleged by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant never booked the tickets with the answering respondent. As such, it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondent and accordingly, dismissal of complaint against answering respondent No. 2 has been sought.
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 complained 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 18.06.2018 and 19.06.2018 there was no booking of bus. 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.
3. The complainant in support of his case, has placed on record some documents and closed his evidence on dated 09.07.2019.
On the other hand, the OP No. 1 in support of his version has placed on record Annexure OP1 to Annexure OP3 and closed the evidence on dt.19.08.2019. The OP No. 2 has also placed on record affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed the evidence on dt.12.03.2020. Sh. Des Raj Clerk on behalf of OP No.3 in support of his version has placed on record Ex.RW1/A & document as Annexure R1 and closed his evidence on dt. 19.08.2019.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel of complainant, OP No.1, OP No. 2 and the representative appearing on behalf of 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, OP No. 1, OP No.2 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 opposite party No.1, there was no booking for the date of 26th & 29th of June 2018 and the complainant had booked bus ticket for 19th, 22nd and 23rd of June, 2018. It is further submitted that opposite party No. 1 just act as an intermediately 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 "Paytm 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. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has admitted the fact that there was no bus service from Bhiwani to Sikkar of the respondent no.2 at the time table alleged by the complainant. It was further submitted that complainant never booked ticket with the answering respondent. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 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 bus of Rajasthan Roadways. It is further submitted that as per report of Station Supervisor on 18.06.2018 and 19.06.2018, there was no booking of bus of Rajasthan Roadways bus from Bhiwani to 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 on 19.06.2018 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. 2 that there was no time table of the Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation from Bhiwani to Sikkr on 19.06.2018, 22.06.2018 and 23.06.2018. Meaning thereby without verification or confirmation, the paytm had booked the bus from Bhiwani to Sikkar. Respondent No.1 failed to place on record that they have ever received any mail or any document for registration of the tickets by the Paytm from Bhiwani to Sikkar of Rajasthan Roadways Transport Corporation for the dates 19.06.2018, 22.06.2018 and 23.06.2018. 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. As per the email placed on record as Annexure-C5, the complainant has demanded Rs.2500/- from the opposite party no.1 which was paid by him to the private taxi on dated 19.06.2018. As per email dated 19.06.2018 and 22.06.2018, opposite party No.1 has apologized for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and they offered Rs.1000/- as the full refund of the booking amount. But the complainant has demanded Rs.10,100/- (Rs.2500/-, Rs.3800/- and Rs.3800/-) from the opposite parties as spent by him on his journey through private car on dated 19.06.2018, 22.06.2018 and 23.06.2018 respectively. To prove the same complainant has placed on record documents Annexure-C6 to Annexure C-8. 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 complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.10,100/-(Rupees ten thousand and one hundred only) on account of money spent by the complainant on his journey alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.07.2018 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 after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
Dated: - 18.3.2021
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
