Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/348/2023

The Manager, OLA Cabs - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri S.Mohanabharathi, S/o Selvaraj - Opp.Party(s)

M/s C. Franco Louis

31 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

F.A. No.348/2023

(Against the Order made in C.C.No.29/2020, dated:24.06.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Tiruppur)

 

DATED THE 31^ST DAY OF JULY 2023

 

The Manager,

OLA CABS,

ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Regent insignia,

No.414, 3^rd Floor, 4^th Block,

7^th Main, 100 Ft. Road,

Komaramangala,

Bengaluru – 560 034.                        .. Appellant / Opposite party. 

 

-Versus-

Sri. S. Mohanabharathi,

S/o. Mr. Selvaraj,

No.49/50, Dolphin Complex,

Benny Compound Main Road,

Kumaran Road,

Tirupur.                                          .. Respondent / Complainant.  

 

Counsel for the Appellant /Opposite party    : M/s. C. Franco Louis

 

Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant   : Notice served

                               

The respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions.  The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Consumer Commission, Tiruppur dt. 24.06.2022 in C.C. No.29/2020.

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today and upon hearing the arguments of the Appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

Thiru.R VENKATESA PERUMAL , MEMBER                      

        1.  The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that on 14.09.2019, he booked a cab with the opposite party through his mobile No.9092344337 at 02.50 P.M. from Tirupur District Sub-Court complex to Chinnanadi Palayam along with his Seniors to attend the condolence of the President of Bar Association.   The total distance to travel is of 9.2 KMS.  The complainant opened the opposite party app for booking and found the charges for travel was Rs.189/-.  Hence, the complainant booked the cab.  The complainant and his seniors reached the said Chinnadipalayam but could not find his bar President’s house.   In the mean time, the driver of the opposite party told the complainant to extend their booking for further travelling in their cab.    Therefore, the complainant extended his booking and reached the destination within 2 kms.  After reaching the destination, the complainant asked the opposite party’s driver for payment of charge.  It was a shock and surprise to the complainant that the opposite party’s cab driver demanded Rs.998/- from the complainant for such ride.  But the complainant refused to pay such a huge amount for just 9.2 kms.  But the opposite party cab driver threatened the complainant to pay the huge amount.  The opposite party voluntarily added convenience fee of Rs.218.99, base fare of Rs.400/- instead of Rs.189/- and had voluntarily changed MICRO to SEDAN for a running car and thus played a fraud.   Immediately, the complainant had made a complaint to the opposite party but they have not responded properly.  The complainant after attending the said condolence had booked a Red Taxi for return and paid only Rs.150/-.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party on 10.01.2020 which was  received by the opposite party but did not sent any reply.  Thereafter, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission claiming refund of a sum of Rs.998/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 14.09.2019 till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost to the complainant.

3.     Though notice has been served on the opposite party, he has not chosen to appear before the District Commission and hence, the opposite party was set exparte.  Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order by directing the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.600/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  The above amount should be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of order failing which, the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a..

4.     Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

 

5.     Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant / opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part.  After the appellant / opposite party had set exparte, he approached the District Consumer Commission and requested for time to file version and to contest the matter.  But the District Consumer Commission failed to restore the matter and passed orders on 24.06.2022.  Thereafter, he sought this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

6. When the case had come up before this Commission on 27.07.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant / opposite party and therefore, in order to give a chance to the opposite party to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 28.07.2023.  Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

         In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Commission, Tiruppur in C.C. No.29/2020 dt.24.06.2023 and the matter is remanded back to the District Consumer Commission, Tiruppur for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

 Both parties are directed to appear before the District Consumer Commission, Tiruppur on 31.08.2023 for further proceedings.  The appellant / opposite party is directed to file Vakalath, Written Version, proof affidavit, written argument and documents if any on the same day itself.

 The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.  

 Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellant / opposite party before this Commission.

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                  R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/July/2023.