Delhi

North East

CC/347/2022

Aditya Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATD - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 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. 347/22

In the matter of:

 

		Aditya Verma, S/o Sh. Rajesh Verma, R/o H.No. C-45-B, Gali No. 7, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi 110093		Complainant
		Versus
	1.   2.   3.	TATD   Hemant Aggarwal & Raj   Sonu Kumar (Driver)   All at: Plot No. 90, 91, Office No. 004, Jain Park Colony, New Delhi 110059		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		29.08.2022 26.02.2024 02.05.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

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

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had booked a driver from TATD for two days tour from 24.06.2022 to 26.06.2022 for Nainital. It is his case that the said diver whose name is Sony Kumar had picked the whole family of the Complainant and they had left Delhi at midnight 12:00 p.m. After dropping the Complainant along with his family members at Hotel Prince Pay at 07:00 am in the morning on 25.06.2022, the said driver took the vehicle of the Complainant bearing no. DL5CQ8172 and told him that he was taking the vehicle in parking. Complainant stated that after this he along with family members rested for the whole day and afterwards he called the driver in the evening but he did not pick the call and also did not give any reply. Complainant stated that the key of the vehicle of the Complainant was also in the possession of the driver. After that the Complainant reached the nearest police station Kotwali Mallital, Nainital and submitted a written application. Complainant stated that he wanted to lodge the FIR against the driver but he called the company and the company apologized for the same and prayed to not make the FIR. Complainant stated that the company promised him that they would refund the amount and settle the entire outstanding if dues with compensation so he did not file the FIR. Complainant stated that thereafter he called his father and his father reached Nainital with another key of the said vehicle and the whole trip was expelled. Complainant stated that the original key of the said vehicle is still with the driver. It is his case that after he reached Delhi the Company deny to give the original amount alongwith compensation, therefore, he lodged a complaint against the company and driver at Shahdara, Police Station. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 28,311/- on account of damage of the car by driver, Rs. 5,093/- as visit charge of his father, Rs. 7,777/- as hotel charge,       Rs. 3,500/- as cash payment done for installation of reboot and keys and                 Rs. 3,819/- as other expenditure. Complainant also prayed for an amount of      Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 to contest the case.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is stated thatthe role of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2  are limited only upto providing suitable driver to the needy customers and being a third party service provider, the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 do not have any control or supervision over the driver. Even as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2, if any dispute has arose between the Complainant and the driver with regard to theft, damage or violation of any traffic law, it a part of police investigation and responsibility of driver and customer/Complainant. Further, as a use, it is the Customer/Complainant who authorize a driver to operate his vehicle and make decision on their behalf during a period of time designated by them. It is further stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 role comes to an end as and when they provide a driver to the needy customers and thereafter it is the sole duty and responsibility of driver and customer. It is further stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 sent an email to the Complainant on 11^th and 12^th July 2022 whereby the Complainant was only offered a sum of Rs. 2,150/- only on moral ground and as a gesture. It is denied by the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 that they ever promised to refund the amount and settle all the outstanding of dues with compensation.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2has filed affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and AR for the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he hired a service of driver for two days from Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 by paying an amount of Rs. 2,150/- for a round trip Delhi to Nainital and Nainital to Delhi. It is his case that after reaching their destination, the said driver after dropping them in their hotel and left with the car for parking. After resting in their room, Complainant called the driver but he did not pick up the phone and found untraceable. It is his case that key of the car was also with the driver. Complainant filed a complaint with the concerned Police Station in Nainital. He also wants to lodge the FIR but on the pursuance of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 he did not lodge the same. He called his father along with the second key of the car and return back to Delhi. It is also his case that when he took the car from the parking, it was found that the car was damaged and he spent Rs. 28,311/- on the repair of the car and Rs. 3,500/- for installation of reboot and keys. Complainant also spent Rs. 5,093/- for his father visit to Nainital.
8. On the other hand, it is admittedby the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 that they have provided the service of driver to the Complainant buttheir role are limited only up to providing suitable driver to the customers. They did not have any control or supervision over the driver. Even as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the Complainant and them, if any dispute has arose between the Complainant and the driver with regard to theft, damage or violation of any traffic law, it a part of police investigation and responsibility of driver and Customer/Complainant. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 role comes to an end as and when they provide a driver to the customer, thereafter, it is the sole duty and responsibility of driver and customer. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their part.
9. It is clear from the above that the Complainant hired a driver from the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 for round trip Delhi to Nainital and driver was untraceable after dropping them in their hotel in Nainital. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 were duty bound to provide the service of driver for round trip and driver was not available for dropping them from Nainital to Delhi. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. Further, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 did not lead any evidence that they had ever supplied the terms and condition entered between the Complainant and themto the Complainant. Even, if we presume that it was brought to the notice of the Complainant then according to condition no. 4 (i.e. in case of damage to the vehicle or any violation of traffic laws performed by the driver, charges will be recovered from the driver’s payout. Driver account will remain suspended until he clears his dues) they have to recover any damage to the vehicle from the driver.
10. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 31,811/- on account of damage to the car and installation of reboot and keys to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is also directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 02.05.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President