Delhi

North East

CC/395/2024

PRINKESH VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

REDBUS INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 395/24

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Prinkesh Verma C 6/343, Yamuna Vihar Delhi 110053		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	Redbus India Pvt. Ltd. Flat No. 909, 9th Floor, Connaught Place, K G Marg, Naurang House 21, New Delhi 110001   Greencell Express Pvt. Ltd. Unit 405, E Wing, Corporate Avenue Chakala, Andheri East Mumbai 400093		Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. As per the complaint, the case of the Complainant is that on 23.06.24 Complainant went to Jaipur for his preliminary examination conducted by Rajasthan Judicial Services and booked his return travel from an electric bus Neugo (AC Electric Bus) from Jaipur, Rajasthan Transport Nagar (Aswal Travels) to Delhi (ISBT) Kashmiri Gate. The grievance of the Complainant is that the boarding time was 23.45 p.m. but the bus reached at 01.00 p.m. in midnight at boarding point. It is further alleged that the customer support of Nuego & Redbus could not be connected despite efforts.  The Opposite Party No.2 has charged Rs. 2,054.35/- which is exorbitant than usual, despite that the Complainant has booked and paid the above mentioned amount for ease and comfortable journey.  It is also alleged that the Complainant is also a practicing advocate and had a meeting with his client on dated 24.06.24 which has to be postponed due to the delay caused by Opposite Party and the Complainant had to lose his client. The Opposite Party has lack of customer support and deficiency in service and not even provides the contact details of driver/helper which ought to be provide beforehand. The Complainant has prayed for damages on account of above noted deficiency in services.
2. The present complaint is on admission stage. Arguments heard on admission and perused the file.
3. The perusal of the material on record reveals that the Complainant has filed copy of legal notice sent by him to the Opposite Party as well as reply received from Opposite Party. In the said reply of Opposite Party, Opposite Party has admitted delay of one hour which was caused due to traffic congestion and certain technical issues and also tendered apology. Opposite Party had also stated in their reply that Complainant’s concerns were noted and ticket amount has already been refunded to the Complainant.
4. The Complainant has alleged deficiency in services on account of delay caused by bus run by the Opposite Party Company due to which the Complainant has lost a client and filed copy of what app chat with client. The said document does not contain any date.  
5. The Complainant has alleged deficiency for a delay due to technical issues and traffic issues. It is also clear that the Opposite Party has already processed the  refund of the ticket and apologized also for the inconvenience. Further, the  Complainant has not been able to produce any cogent evidence in support of his case, showing any deficiency in services towards the Complainant on the part of Opposite Party. 
6. In view of above, we find the present complaint devoid of any merit to warrant its admission.
7.  Thus, the present complaint is dismissed.
8. Order announced on 09.08.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)            Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President