DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.184/2018
Shri Pravesh Thakur
S/o Lt. Shri Babu Ram,
A-187, Tyagi Market,
Near Mother Dairy Wali Gali,
33 Foot Road, Dabua Colony,
N.I.T. Faridabad,
Faridabad-121001 (Haryana)
….Complainant
Versus
- Customer Service/ Support Head
Uber, Uber office
E-16, Main Market, Block-E,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.
- Customers Services/ Support Head
Uber, Uber Office,
SCO-300, Sector-29,
Gurugram, Haryana-122022
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 07.07.2018 Date of Order : 28.07.2020
Coram:
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
- Brief facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant are that the complainant planned a family trip to Jaipur for 18.05.2018. The train was to depart from Delhi Sarai Rohila Railway station at 10.45 PM on 18.05.2018. It is alleged that the complainant alongwith his younger brother and sister booked a cab of Uber company (OP) at 09.39 PM from Delhi Central Secretariat Metro Station. But after 7 to 8 minutes, the driver of the cab cancelled the cab stating that he was not going towards Railway Station. Complainant booked another cab from OP company wherein the cab driver again refused.
- Complainant immediately downloaded the Ola app and booked a cab of Ola company. Complainant’s mother, sister and brother-in-law alongwith a small baby were already waiting at Delhi Sarai Rohilla Railway Station. However, the complainant alongwith his siblings reached late at the Railway Station and consequently missed the train.
- It is further stated that the complainant and his family then booked Maruti Ertiga XL of OP company to travel to Jaipur. It is stated that total fare reflecting on the application of OP company was Rs.3,999/-. It is alleged that the driver on reaching the toll barrier asked the complainant to pay the toll tax. Complainant was shocked as nothing was told to him regarding the payment of the toll tax before availing the service of OP.
- It is next stated that the complainant noticed that the cab driver was high on alcohol. He was also not wearing the seat belt and was stopped by the police for the same. The cab driver on their way to Jaipur got the CNG filled for five times. Each time the complainant and his family was forced to wait on the CNG stations for filing the gas which added to the time and bill of the complainant. It is stated that on reaching the hotel the complainant received an email pertaining to bill of Rs.5049/- instead of Rs.3,999/-. The complainant was shocked and surprised to see so much of discrepancy in the said bill and was reluctant to pay the excess amount on which the cab driver of the said company started misbehaving with the complainant and his family. Alleging deficiency of service, mental harassment on part of representative of OP company complainant prays for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the same.
- Notice sent to OP-1 is received back with the Forum with the remarks ‘sealed’. As none appeared on behalf of OP-2 despite the service of notice, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.05.2019.
- Submissions made on behalf of the complainant are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
- Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. However complainant’s evidence has been appreciated on the touchstone of probabilities and human frailty.
- Complainant in support of his case has filed emails exchanged between the parties, confirmed booking ticket of six adults, payment details made via Paytm and Rating of One Aman Deep along with the receipt.
- Complainant has alleged deficiency against OPs on two grounds. First grievance of the complainant is that the complainant and his family missed the train to Jaipur on account of denial by two drivers of OP company to take them to the Railway Station. Complainant has failed to file any evidence against that first two drivers of OP company.
- The second grievance of the complainant is that the driver of the OP company who drove them to Jaipur was intoxicated. Complainant has not adduced any evidence other than the affidavit reflecting the same. Mere averments without any documentary evidence cannot be taken as gospel truth.
- It is alleged that the complainant was informed that the taxi charges of OP company from Delhi to Jaipur were Rs.3,999/- whereas on reaching the hotel he received an email wherein he was asked to pay Rs.5,047/-. It is matter of common knowledge that the app (application) of travel company’s show tentative charges before booking the cab. Final bill is raised by the company on actual usage which includes the time taken to reach the destination.
- Complainant’s allegation against the cab driver of OP-1 is that he stopped the vehicle on the way to Jaipur several times to get the CNG filled and wasted time there which was added by the OP in the bill of the complainant. Complainant has not filed any evidence to show the travel time taken from Delhi to reach Jaipur. Further he has not mentioned the location or name of the five CNG stations where the vehicle was stopped or the time spent there. Otherwise also complainant with the additional documents at page No. 11 has attached a Paytm wallet bill wherein it can be seen that Rs.4,900/- were paid to Amandeep Shokal (Cab driver of OP) whereas the bill raised by OP company was Rs.5047/-. Evidently complainant has not paid the full raised bill which raises questions on the conduct of the complainant.
- Complainant has failed to establish the allegations made against OP. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint being frivolous and meritless.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 28.07.2020
