BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.165 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:         10.04.2015

                                                         Date of Decision:          30.09.2015

Jasbir Singh son of Late Darshan Singh resident of HIG no.1512, Sector 70, Mohali 160 071 (Punjab)

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Meru Cab Company Pvt. Ltd., 128, IJMIMA, Raheja Metroplex, Off Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400064 through its Managing Director Shri Neeraj Gupta.

2.     Customer Service Manager, Meru Cab Company Pvt. Ltd., 128, IJMIMA, Raheja Metroplex, Off Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400064

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri S.K.Rana, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Karan Nehra, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The case of the complainant is that he is working as General Manager (Law) in HUDCO, a Govt. of India Enterprises at New Delhi. He is at present working at the Regional Office at Sector 34, Chandigarh.  Being at the senior post, the complainant has to frequently go on tours for meeting clients and settlement of cases and other company requirements.  The OPs are operating and providing Cab Services in different cities including Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula. The complainant was to visit his Head office/New Delhi for official assignment and for that he booked a confirmed ticket of Kalka Shatabdi Express from Chandigarh to New Delhi. The complainant booked a Meru Cab of the OPs at 11.07 AM on 10.12.2014 through phone for drop services from his residence at Sector 70, Mohali to Railway Station Chandigarh. A message confirming the booking was received at his Mobile number at 11.09 hrs.  The complainant kept on waiting for the cab at his residence upto 5.00 P.M.  and having received no response from the OPs, he called the customer service phone of the OPs at 17.03 hrs and after taking his details, the phone was hanged up without any information about arrival of the cab.  The complainant kept on waiting but no response was received back. The complainant again called the customer service and was shocked to know that the cab has broken down and the OPs were not in a position to provide another cab before 19.00 hrs.  Left with no choice, the complainant had to arrange alternative arrangement. The OPs failed to provide assured service and thus committed deficiency in service. The complainant sent them a legal notice dated 02.01.2015 to pay him the damages suffered by him but the OPs have failed to make payment.

                With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to pay him Rs.10.00 lacs as damages alongwith litigation expenses and interest @ 18% per annum for harassment, mental agony etc.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs.  The OPs in the preliminary objections of their joint written statement have pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint does not disclose any deficiency in service or irresponsible act on the part of the OPs. This Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint in view of Clause 14.1 of the terms and conditions of the booking.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs.  As per Clause 4 of the General Terms and Conditions, the OPs are not liable for any loss to the customer.  The complainant booked the cab in advance for pick and drop on 10.12.2014.  Use of the services offered by the OPs is at the sole risk of the customer and its services are subject to terms and conditions governing use of Meru Cab Booking Services placed on its web. Site www.merucabs.com. The OPs have accepted the advance booking and the complainant was informed by SMS that the cab details would be sent 20 minutes prior to pick up time once the same is confirmed. The OPs shall not be jointly or severally held liable for any direct or indirect loss or damage which may be suffered by the customer as a result of any failure by the company to provide a cab to the customer within any stipulated time. In the event of any passenger misses the train or flight or bus, the company will not be held liable for any compensation and or any direct or indirect losses incurred by the customer.  The complainant has made an exorbitant claim of Rs.10,00,000/- compensation towards harassment and mental agony.  The complainant is not entitled to any refund/compensation as alleged in view of the specific term and conditions.  Denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-11.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Rajiv Bali, their authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

6.             The factum of booking of Meru cab by the complainant for transportation for 10.12.2014 at 17.00 hours from his House No.1512, Sector 70 Mohai to Railway Station, Chandigarh is not disputed. The complainant has got confirmation of booking on his mobile No.9915006377 at 11.09 hours with the following message:

“Thank you for choosing Meru for 10 Dec. 2014 at 17.00. Your ref. No. is 32715024. We’ll send cab details 20 mins prior to pickup time. T&C apply, visit www.merucabs.com.”

7.             As per the massage the cab was to report to the complainant 20 minutes prior to the pickup time. However, when no cab was reported the complainant contacted the customer care service of the OPs. Instead of responding to the query of the complainant immediately,  the OPs referred back to the complainant at 17.11 hours and informed him about the breaking down of the cab and, therefore, showed their inability to provide service to the complainant. The complainant under the circumstances had no choice but to make alternate arrangement for reaching at the railway station before the departure time of Shatabadi Kalka New Delhi Express as the complainant was to attend some official meeting next day at Delhi. Due to the act of the OPs for not providing him timely information about the breakdown of the vehicle, unabling to provide the promised service by the OP to the complainant, the OP has acted in a negligent manner leading to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8.             The OPs in its reply have admitted booking of the cab but shifted the onus on another company for providing the transportation service to the complainant. Further, they took the shelter of words ‘terms and conditions apply’ and referred to website, as mentioned by them in the message sent to the complainant regarding confirmation of booking and denied deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.

9.             The question for consideration is whether the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and deficiency in service causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

 10.          In order to find out the answer it will be appropriate to read out the message which per se shows confirmation of booking of the cab. Thus, the complainant becomes the consumer of the OPs for providing the transportation services at a designated place and designated time and date. The OPs have admitted in the message to provide the cab details 20 minutes prior to pick up. The OPs in no manner can absolve their liability of giving information of the cab details 20 minutes prior to pick up time. Admittedly the information of non availability of the cab has been passed on by the OPs to the complainant after the expiry of pick up time i.e. 17.00 hrs.  The OPs in no manner are entitled to shift their liability to a third party with whom they have internal arrangement and with whom the complainant is not a party to availing of services. The whole transaction in the matter is confined to complainant and OP No.1 only and not with the third party.

11.           The OPs have admitted having booked the cab by the complainant through mobile calling the call centre of the Ops but the denied the consumer relationship with the complainant as at the time of booking no consideration is passed on to the OPs by the complainant.  It is a general fact known to the public at large that the consideration in such like situations is always paid after availing of the services.   Since the OPs have failed to provide the promised service at promised time, therefore, the question of payment of consideration does not arise in this case.  Another plea of the OPs that terms and conditions of the booking are available on the website and as per those terms (in case of taxi not owned by the company, the company is not responsible for any default in the services). The condition may be available on the website but were not brought to the knowledge of the complainant at the time of booking of the taxi particularly when the complainant has booked the taxi through mobile application and not online internet. Thus, the terms and conditions which were not in the knowledge of the complainant are not binding on him.  Further as per the OPs once the complainant raised a complaint with the feedback department as a good will gesture, a token of regret of Rs.150/- was offered to the complainant by the customer relation department of the company vide e-mail dated 03.01.2015 as Ex.OP-3. The said meager goodwill gesture of Rs.150/- is not acceptable to the complainant and the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking compensation for harassment. Once the OPs have accepted their fault and though even as a goodwill gesture offered a relief of Rs.150/- to the complainant, we fell that the said sum is too meager to compensate a senior officer of a public sector undertaking who has been put to lot of harassment and mental agony due to the acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complaint, therefore, on the facts and documents deserves to be allowed and compensated.

12.           In view of above discussion the complaint is allowed. Both the OPs are jointly and severally directed:

(a)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of  Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

September 30, 2015.    

                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member