DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.137/2021

1. Rajesh Pandey

S/o Deep Chandra Pandey

C-02, Type-V Quarters

HUDCO Place, New Delhi

….Complainant

Versus

1. Taxi Bazaar (online Poartal)

B-127, Ramprastha, Gaziabad (U.P.)-201011

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :  30.03.2021     

 Date of Order            :  27.08.2024     

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present: Complainant on VC.

              Adv. Megha Gupta for OP.

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.       Briefly put complainant booked an AC Taxi with Taxi Bazaar (online portal) hereinafter referred to as OP. Complainant booked a Taxi on 04.11.2020 , with  return journey to travel from Delhi to Lucknow

2.       It is stated that complainant received an email and whatsapp on 04.11.2020 confirming complainant’s booking of taxi on 12.11.2020 from Delhi to Lucknow and 17.11.2020 from Lucknow to Delhi. On 12.11.2020 at around 9.30 AM a driver and vehicle different from the ones whose details were sent, came for pick-up and the vehicle seemingly was not in good condition.

3.       It is next stated that on commencement of the journey, the driver asked for Rs.3000/- for filling gas/fuel and told the complainant to deduct the said amount from the final payment. To utter dismay, it was found further that AC of the vehicle was not functioning, on enquiring the driver showed his ignorance and assured that he will get it repaired on the way. The complainant was hard pressed for time and wanted to reach Lucknow before dark for the safety of his family and also to attend the family get together, hence, ignored the discomfort of AC not being functioning.

4.       It is further stated that around 3 PM while travelling on Agra-Lucknow Expressway the vehicle broke down and the complainant along with his family were left stranded. Complainant sought help from OP but to no avail. It is further stated that the driver asked for Rs.1000/- for repairing the vehicle which was paid by the complainant in cash. The vehicle mechanic tried to repair the vehicle but due to some new fault the mechanic decided to repair it on the next day.

5.       After more than four hours and no help  from OP or the driver, the complainant was left with no option but to manage a taxi on his own. The complainant with great difficulty managed to leave the place around 7.30 PM with lot of fear and anxiety as he was travelling with his family. It is stated that complainant finally reached Lucknow around 11.15 PM, as a result missed the family get together. The whole episode also put the aged and ailing father of the complainant under mental and emotional stress. Thereafter, complainant sought refund of Rs.4000/- and suitable compensation from OP but did not receive any positive response.

6.       Alleging deficiency of service, complainant prays for direction to OP to refund Rs.4000/- with interest @18% p.a;  to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation  for providing deficient services and causing mental agony, pain and suffering; to pay Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

7.       OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that complainant  booked a taxi for Rs.12,000/- to travel from Delhi to Lucknow on  12.11.2020 and return journey on 17.11.2020. It is stated that OP collaborates with tax drivers and is only an aggregator between the taxi owner and the customer. Thus, OP has no role with respect to the taxi car, as he is not the owner of such taxies and in case of any mechanical defect in the car, owner of that car is responsible.

8.       It is next stated that OP had shared the details of a taxi bearing number DL1ZC 8963 allotted to the complainant a day in advance. However, due to unforeseen reasons OP had to allot a different taxi bearing number DL1ZC 2805. The said taxi was in good condition having a valid fitness certificate as well registration certificate. It is stated that the vehicle was only two years old and was in perfect condition, the vehicle was duly inspected before going on the trip.

9.       It is further stated that while travelling, the car hit a pothole and broke down after covering some distance.  The driver immediately found a mechanic and asked him to fix the vehicle. Upon checking, the mechanic informed that the vehicle due to hitting the pothole and also the fact that AC was being turned on and off frequently on a heater mode led to overheating of the car, which led to leakage in the car’s coolant and the same could not be fixed without taking the car to the repair shop.

10.     It is further stated that OP tried its best to provide an alternate vehicle, however due to outbreak of Covid-19, it was difficult to find a new taxi immediately  as all the nearby taxi stands  were shut due to the pandemic. It is also stated that since the taxi had broken down on the Expressway, it was not easy to find a substitute since all the nearby available vehicles were at a distance of three to four hours.

11.     It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with the costs being devoid of merit.

12.     In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, it is stated that the weather in North India at the time of his travel was around 27°C to 28°C and at this temperature nobody requires AC to be put on the heater mode. Since there were five passengers including driver travelling in the taxi, complainant had asked the taxi driver to switch on the AC of the vehicle which was found to be non-functional. It is further stated that the vehicle broke down on Agra-Lucknow Expressway and the expressway is so well maintained that it usually takes six to six and half hours from Delhi to Lucknow and there are absolutely no potholes on the Expressway.

13.     Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused. 

14.     Complainant in support of his case along with the other documents has filed photographs of the vehicle and receipt of Rs.3000/- paid by the complainant to the taxi driver, weather report of Lucknow on 12.11.2020. OP’s contention that the vehicle was about two years old and had a fitness certificate does not go well with the Commission as it is evident from the photographs placed on record that the vehicle was not being maintained properly and was not well kept.

15.     The second contention of OP that on complainant’s insistence AC was turned on and off on the heater mode which contributed in leakage of the car’s coolant, is also ill founded. It is common knowledge that the weather in the month of November is not so cold which would require the switching of AC on heater mode.  The weather report filed by the complainant also substantiates that the temperature at the time of travel was around 28 degree centigrade.

16.     The next  contention of OP that the vehicle broke down due to hitting a pothole creates a doubt since the vehicle was plying on an Expressway  which is usually well maintained. Even if, OP’s version is taken it to be true, it does not take away the fact that the complainant and his family had a harrowing experience as they were left stranded on a Expressway without any food, water and washroom facility for about four to five hours.

17.     The complainant along with his family was travelling during the Covid period which made it difficult or almost impossible for OP to find an alternate vehicle for the complainant. We are of the view that in such circumstances complainant and his family must have undergone lot of difficulty to arrange for a taxi.  OP cannot wash off its hands by stating that OP is merely an aggregator. We are of the opinion that the complainant did not book a taxi from a taxi stand but availed the services of OP to hire a taxi. Therefore, OP was duty bound to have checked and verified whether the taxi was in road worthy condition at the time of travel or not.

18.     In light of the discussion above, OP is found to be deficient in service and is therefore directed to refund Rs.4000/- paid to the taxi driver with interest @8% p.a from 12.11.2020 within 03 months from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay the above stated amount with interest @10% p.a till realization.

19.     Additionally, OP is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and suffering.

Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.