Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/146/2021

Dr. Vandana Parvez - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zoomcar India Private Limited, Mr. Gregory B Moran CEO - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. G. Veerapathiram

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                                 Date of Complaint Filed : 18.03.2021

                                                 Date of Reservation      : 10.03.2023

                                                Date of Order               : 28.03.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                  : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                  :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,           : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 146/2021

TUESDAY, THE 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

Dr. Vandana Parvez,

W/o Mukhtar Parvez,

Aged about 49 years,

Residing at 9M SIS Meridian,

Velacheri Bye Pass Road,

Velacherry,

Chennai-600 042

Tamil Nadu.                                                                                                                                           ... Complainant                

..Vs..

 

1. Zoomcar India Private Limited,

    Mr. Gregory B Moran (CEO),

    Having its Head office at,

    Unit Nos. 701 to 717,7^th Floor,

    Tower-B, Diamond District,

    150, HAL Airport Road,

    Kodihalli, Bangalore-560008.

 

    Having Regional Office at

    No. 1/53 A, Veterans Lane,

    Pallavaram, Chennai 600016.

 

2. Mr. Gregory B Moran,

    Having its registered Head office at

    Unit Nos. 701 to 717,7^th Floor,

    Tower-B, Diamond District,

    150, HAL Airport Road,

    Kodihalli, Bangalore-560008.

 

 

 

3. Dipshikha Chakravorty,

    Authorised Signatory,

    Unit Nos. 701 to 717,7^th Floor,

    Tower-B, Diamond District,

   150, HAL Airport Road,

   Kodihalli, Bangalore-560008.

 

4. Anitha Rajasekaran,

    Authorised Signatory,

    Unit Nos. 701 to 717,7^th Floor,

    Tower-B, Diamond District,

    150, HAL Airport Road,

     Kodihalli, Bangalore-560008.                                                                                                   ...  Opposite parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. G. Veerapathiran

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. S. Marshall

 

On perusal of records and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties  we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid a sum of Rs.42,380/- along with interest for deficiency in service and to reimburse the wasteful expenses incurred during the trip by the Complainant which amounts to Rs.1,68,332/- and to pay  a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of time, energy and also for psychological trauma suffered by the Complainant and her family members due to the deficiency in service and to pay  a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant and her family members and to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-as compensation due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and unfair trade practice.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submitted 1^st Opposite Party is a company that provides self-drive cars rental service for a long and short distance route. The company advertises that it saves the cost and hassles of owning a car for travel by the customers. The 1^st Opposite Party has a website and a mobile app on which its customers can book cars for self- drive to use all over India. The Complainant submitted that she along with her family i.e. husband and children planned to travel from Delhi to Leh & Ladakh by car provided by Zoom Car. On 28.04.2018 the Complainant at Chennai used the mobile phone application developed by 1^st Opposite Party, Zoomcar India Pvt Ltd for a travel booking from Delhi to Leh & Ladakh. As a part of booking process, she was instructed to list out her itinerary which included places of visit along with dates. The Complainant states that she did as instructed/directed and furnished all the details about their travel. The Complainant further submitted that these particulars were given by the Complainant as per the prerequisites for the completion of the booking process and the booking was completed at Chennai and the Opposite Party allotted the ID number to the Complainant viz. I.D.No.JPS62E384. After the completion of the booking process with ID No.JPS62E384, she was allocated a Mahindra Scorpio bearing No.DL-1-NA-1968 for her trip starting on 20.05.2018 at 8:00 am to 03.06.2018 at 12:00pm. The Complainant had transferred the payment of Rs.42,380.00 only through the mobile app payment gateway, which was acknowledged by Zoomcar India Pvt Ltd. They arrived Delhi and contacted the representatives of the Opposite Party.  A Vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration number DL I NA 1968 was delivered to the Complainant at East of Kailash (Community Centre, Behind M Cinema) New Delhi. After obtaining all valid travel and vehicle entry permits, she along with her family commenced their journey from Delhi to Leh. They arrived in Manali on 21.05.2018. After night halt, on 22.05.2018 they were issued vehicle permit to travel to Leh-Ladakh by the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, ManaliDist, Kullu, H.P. On 23.05.2018, the Complainant and her family were also issued a protected area permit by the office of the District Magistrate, Leh Ladakh and on the same day when the Complainant arrived at Upshi Village, Ladakh region they were asked to pay Congestion Charges and receipt issued, which they complied with. The Complainant submitted that on 24.05.2018, when they attempted to drive to Leh via Kharu junction to refuel the car they were stopped and   gheraoed by an aggressive and irate mob claiming to be representatives of the Local Taxi Union stating that Zoom cars are not allowed to ply their vehicles in this region since the last 4-5 years but despite the same, the Zoom car Company continue to send their car through the ignorant and unaware customers to the region after collecting huge sums of monies from them towards the car-rental charges. Knowing fully well that taxis/cars from other regions are not allowed to ply in the Leh- Ladakh region, the Opposite Parties suppressed this fact, collected monies from the Complainant when the car was booked by the Complainant clearly stating the destination of their visit. This amounts to dereliction of duty for which the Opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for their acts. After repeated calls to Zoomcar, the Complainant was informed that there was no representative of Zoomcar India Pvt Ltd available in the nearby area. The Complainant submitted that the mobile app gave an assurance and clear picture of 24/7 assistance from Zoomcar which is prima facie a false statement. To ensure the safety of her family and to prevent further threat to their lives and prevent damage to the vehicle, more-so due to non-co-operation from Zoomcar India Pvt Ltd i.e. the Opposite Party the Complainant and also in order to ensure the safety of the vehicle, she responsibly parked the vehicle at Leh Police Station premises and returned to Chennai via Delhi after rebooking flights at exorbitant additional cost. They lodged a complaint with the Delhi police vide acknowledgement dated 03.06.2018 bearing No. 8170021071800012. Despite all the trauma she under went because of the illicit intent and commercial greed of Zoomcar and its representatives, she responsibly coordinated and handed over of the vehicle keys with related vehicular documents to their authorized representative Mr.Harpal Singh as instructed by Zoomcar. Despite knowledge of all the above issues, subsequently 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties representative of the 1^st Opposite Party Company have issued letters, e- mails and SMS messages illegally raising demand for Rs.2,09,720/- and for which the Complainant is not liable. The Opposite parties have suppressed the facts and sent the Complainant along with the family members and failed to protect and safeguard the Complainant and and her family/customers as promised on their website clearly, amounts to the deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties are as follows:-

 The Opposite Parties submitted that, the above C.C. filed by the Complainant is not maintainable. A perusal of the Booking summary dated 22.05.2018, it can be gauged that a total cost of Rs.37,380/- along with Rs.5,000/- towards refundable deposit was remitted. Once the car is booked, the customer is not entitled to seek any refund, other than the refundable deposit of Rs.5,000/-. Further, as per Undertaking Form dated 22.05.2018, the vehicle was booked in the name of Complainant's husband Mr.Muktha Parvez from Delhi to Leh & Ladah. If any deficiency in service, only Mr.Muktha Pervez (who was also the driver of the car) could initiate legal action, whereas the present complaint initiated by the Complainant's wife Dr.Vandana Parvez is not at all maintainable. Dr. Vandana Parvez had no role in the matter of car booking, car driving and other instructions and she just accompanied her husband. The Complainant Dr.Vandana Parvez has no locus standi to file or maintain the CC and consequently, the present C.C. is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is a common trite that the spouses may share lives, homes and belongings, but that does not give them the authority to file a case in the Consumer Forum, as his wife had no proper authority to file the present case. D. Vandana Parvez is not a 'consumer' under the provisions of the Act, 2019. The 'consumer alone shall have the authority to file a consumer complaint and the complaint is bad in law. During the relevant period, the Mahindra Scorpio bearing Regn.No. DL-1-NA-1968 had necessary documents such as all India permit, Fitness Certificate, Pollution under Control Certificate, and other necessary certificates. It is not the case of the Complainant that the 1^st Opposite Party had provided damaged car or without necessary certificates to the car. In such circumstance, there was no deficiency in service or unlawful enrichment on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party company. However, mere payment through Complainant's credit card does not give her any right to file the consumer complaint.  It is clear that the office of the District Magistrate, Leh-Ladakh issued Protected Area Permit on payment of Congestion Charge and the government authorities did not raise any objection to visit Leh-Ladakh. A perusal of the Proteced Area Permit, it can be seen that it has been issued in the name of Complainant's husband Mr.Muktha Pervez and 3 others being his wife and children. The allegation regarding malafide intention in order to get wrongful gain and in turn to make wrongful loss to the Complainant' is denied. The 1^st  Opposite Party had no malafide intention towards its customers or attained any wrongful gain. For whatever query and tele-cons from the Complainant's husband and Complainant, the officials of the 1^st Opposite Party had promptly answered. The Complainant in order to evade the payment of Rs.2,09,720/-, filed the present case, alleging deficiency in service and wrongful loss to her. The refund and compensation as claimed does not merit for any consideration, as there was no deficiency in service at any point of time. As stated, the Complainant's husband or the Complainant is legally bound to pay the sum of Rs.2,09,720/-. These Opposite Parties submitted that, the complaint ex-facie initiated by the Complainant and the contents thereof cannot be treated within the ambit of complaint itself, since there is no deficiency in any respect on their part in rendering the service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.      

4. The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9. The Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Parties documents were marked as Ex.B-1 alone.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

The Complainant along with her family members had booked a car on 28.04.2018 at Chennai using  for their travel from Delhi to Leh & Ladakh with the Opposite Party for their trip from 20.05.2018 to 03.06.2018. After completion of booking with ID No. JPS62E384 they were allotted a Mahindra Scorpio bearing No.DL-1-NA-1968 on payment of Rs.42,380/-as per Ex.A-1. The said vehicle was delivered to the Complainant at East of Kailash, New Delhi with all supporting documents to the Complainant. The office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Manali District, Kullu, H.P had issued vehicle permit to visit Leh-Ladakh as per Ex.A-2,Pg.9. Further the Office of the District Magistrate, Leh-Ladak had issued protected area permit in favour of the Complainant and her family to visit the places contained therein. According to the Complainant they were not allowed to travel further by the Ladakh Taxi Operator Cooperative Union on the vehicle hired by Zoomcar and that on 24.05.2018 when they attempted to drive to Leh via Kharu junction they were again stopped and gheraoed by an aggressive mob claiming to the representative of Local Taxi Union stating that Zoom car was not permitted to ply in that region since 4 to 5 years, threatening their life. The Complainant’s attempt to contact the Leh Police, which ended invain. The Complainant contended that the Opposite Parties failed to inform the Complainant of the danger in proceedings to such a region and several such incidents have occurred in Leh-Ladakh regarding Zoom car  which the Opposite Parties are fully aware and the Opposite Parties are continuing to advertise the usage of the vehicles to travel to that region making the customers at risk for their illegal enrichment.

The Opposite parties contended that a perusal of the Booking summary dated 22.05.2018 shows that a total cost of Rs.37,380/- along with Rs.5000/- towards refundable deposit was remitted. Once the car is booked the Customer is not entiled to seek any refund other than the refundable deposit of Rs.5000/-. As regards the contention that as per the undertaking Form dated 22.05.2018, the vehicle is booked in the name of the Complainant’s husband Mr.Muktha Parvez and hence the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable as the Complainant who had no role in the matter of car booking is not a consumer, it is seen that the Undertaking given by the Mr.Muktha Parvez, the Complainant’s husband has mentioned 3 other members were going to travel along with him, namely Vandhana Parvez, the Complainant, Vedika Parvez and Mahek Parvez as seen from Ex.A-2, Pg.8. Hence the Complainant being one of the consumers who had availed services from the Opposite Parties and being the beneficiary is entitled to file this Consumer Complaint.

In so far as the contention of the Opposite Party,  that the office of the District Magistrate, Leh Ladakh issued Protection Area Permit on payment of Congestion Charge and the government authorities did not raise any objection to visit Leh-Ladakh the Complainant countered that the visit approval received from the Office of the District Magistrate, Leh-Ladakh was based on the genuine identity of the Complainant and her family and not based on the condition/certificates of the vehicle of the Opposite Parties. Further the Opposite Party contended that the Mahindra Scorpio bearing Regn No.DL-1-NA-1968 had all India Permit, fitness certificate and other necessary certificate. A perusal of Ex.A-2, Pg.9, would show that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Manali District, Kullu, H.P had issued permission on 22.05.2018 to the said vehicle of the Opposite Party to visit Leh-Ladakh. It is seen from Ex.A-2, Pg.5,7, and 10, that the said vehicle possessed necessary permits and certificates from governmental authorities.

Now the point whether the harassment faced by the Complainant and her family members at the hands of the local Taxi Union people, which information of similar disputes between the local Unions and the Opposite Parties was suppressed by the Opposite Parties would amount to deficiency in service. The service availed by the Complainant from the Opposite Parties is for the provision of car for their travel from Delhi to Leh-Ladakh, which was provided by the Opposite Parties along with necessary permits and certificates. For the threat and intimidation which the Complainant and thier family members underwent at the hand of local mobs, the Complainant had to taken up action against the Local Taxi Union / Local mobs before the concerned authorities and the Opposite Parties cannot be made liable.

In view of the above discussions, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties having agreed to provide car to the Complainant and her family members, had delivered the vehicle at the appropriate date with necessary documents and it is not the case of the Complainant that the car provided by them suffered from any defect or that it was not delivered as agreed and for the sufferance caused by the local taxi union people on the way to Leh the Opposite Parties cannot be made liable. The Complainant has not proved that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service had not committed any act of deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 28^th of March 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	28.04.2018	Booking summay & Payment Receipt
Ex.A2	22.05.2018	Undertaking & permits for Leh-Ladakh
Ex.A3	30.05.2018	Complaint letter to Sub Inspector of Police Leh and New Delhi police along with acknowledgement and through email and by letter
Ex.A4	16.06.2018	Copy of Zoomcar Authorization Copy of Aadhar Card of Harpal Singh
Ex.A5	15.06.2018	Copy of Representation dated 15.06.2018
Ex.A6	17.09.2018	Acknowledgment received from Zoomcar
Ex.A7	19.07.2018	Demand raised by Zoomcar on 19.07.2018,24.07.2018 and 27.12.2019
Ex.A8		Copy of the proof of Zoomcar incidents (and company acknowledgment) available on the internet
Ex.A9		Expense incurred during the trip

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

Ex.B1

22.05.2018

Booking summary in the name of Mukhtar Parvez

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT