ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not providing the car at the requested place even though collecting extra amount for it, providing the car which was not properly maintained, without punctured stepney and levying Rs.7,168/- as delay charges by OP intentionally without any justification for taking back the vehicle and for refund of Rs.500/- from OP which was collected as airport conveyance fees, Rs.2,000/- for the inconvenience caused as the vehicle was parked in a wrong location than agreed to be handed over, for Rs.7,168/- being claimed as late fee for returning the car, refund of booking fee of Rs.3,564/- and Rs.1,180/- being the cab charge for taking a cab as an alternate one and Rs.13,232/- as damages for causing mental agony, stress to him and to his family and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant booked a Ford Figo car with OP at Hyderabad for his driving from 23^rd June 2019 to 24^th June 2019.  OP is in the business of renting out car for self driving on rental basis.  The complainant booked the said car for self drive from the Hyderabad airport.  OP assured that the said car i.e., Ford Figo is available for their pickup on their arrival at the ramp of Hyderabad airport for which it charged extra.  On arriving at the Hyderabad airport, when complainant called the fleet executive of OP, he was bluntly told to pick the car from the airport parking area, which was one kilometer, away and he had to walk all the while along with his wife and mother.  There is negligence on the part of OP in not providing the said car at the ramp of the airport even though it collected extra amount of Rs.500/-

3.      It is contended that at the time of taking the vehicle to his possession, it was checked and found that the said car was utterly dirty from inside, door rubber coming out from the front left door, and it was absent from the rare left door, foul fish smell coming from inside the vehicle and it was not clean and the interiors were also not cleaned.  The same was noted in the checklist.  It was a torture for himself and his wife and mother who are all vegetarians. Since they had to reach the venue of the function, they managed somehow with the said car.

4.      It is contended that on the next day, the vehicle was to be dropped at 8.30 pm in the airport area. While coming to the airport, the rare right tyre of the said car got punctured. The stepney in the said vehicle was also a punctured one.  He had to catch the flight within two hours. Hence planned to drop the car at the airport and continue the flight.  When he called the customer care centre in respect of the same, the executive who picked the call asked him to take the tyre, take a cab, get it fixed somewhere and come back or to wait for one to two hours for the fleet executives to come to the location.  The executive did not inform as to when it will happen.  If that was so, complainant would have missed the flight.   He checked with the locals regarding the repair of the puncture and found that it was three kms., away.  The executive of the OP was extremely rude to him and to his wife and mentally harassed them.  Instead of helping they blamed them for the situation.  He decided to leave the car at the parking of IKEA Hyderabad, where the puncture occurred and gave the keys to the security team their and left to airport as he could not bear the waste of thousands of rupees of hard earned money by missing his flight.  The same was informed to the customer executive of OP at 8.15 pm., over phone.  It was noticed by the complainant in the OP mobile application that the OP took 17 hours to pick the said vehicle from IKEA Hyderabad.  The IKEA Hyderabad is just 30 to 45 minutes from the airport. Even if it takes some more time to arrange a person to drive there and back, the car could have been located and taken back before 11 pm on 24^th June 2018.  OPs executive having No.9010091901 called the complainant at 8.45 am., 12.5 hours after informing the leaving of the car that he is at the car location and asking for the keys of the car, which could have been done within 30 to 40 minutes.  The intention of OP for such a delay is only to charge late fee to the complainant, for a period of 17 hours.  Communication was made through their website on several occasions. There was no response received from OP and only on 3^rd July 2018 denied any wrong doings on their part and asking them to pay the late fee.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as made out above and prayed the commission to allow the complaint.

5.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission and filed its version denying all the allegations made against it.  It contended that it is engaged in the business of letting to self driven cars to its customer for a short period of time, for which is having a valid license under rent a cab scheme, formulated by the Government of India in the year 1989.  Complainant entered into with it a member agreement in order to avail the benefit. A car bearing number TS 07-UC 7766 was let out to the complainant on self rental basis for a fixed period of time.  The vehicle was booked from 23.06.2019 to 24.06.2019 and the complainant paid the booking amount including a sum of Rs.500/- towards the airport conveyance fee.  As per the member agreement, the customers bears the responsibility towards third party in the event of any loss or damages arising out of the use of the rental car and also agreed to be liable to pay the loss of damage caused to the vehicle which is not covered under the insurance policy. Before handing over the possession of the car to the customers, OP will thoroughly verify the vehicle in all respects and hand over to the customers.  It will be inspected thoroughly by its experts and after getting the certification, the vehicle will be handed over to the customers.

6.      In the present case, the vehicle booked by the complainant was thoroughly checked and was in a very good condition in all respect and absolutely there was no problem at all when it was handed over to the complainant. It is for the customer to opt the option through website. If they are satisfied, then only the vehicle will be booked.  If the customer has any doubt about the information available in the website he can call directly to the customer care in that respect.

7.      It is contended that the car was delivered on the date as per the booking details and the pickup point and drop location was also provided. As per the request of the complainant, the vehicle was parked at the Hyderabad airport for the complainant to pick the vehicle on 23.06.2019. After completing the journey, he was supposed to drop the vehicle at Hyderabad airport and not in a different place as per the agreement.  At 8.30 pm, on 24.06.20-19 complainant informed OP regarding the puncture of the right rare tyre.  If that was so, it is not due to the mistake of the OP.  However, OP requested the complainant to get it repaired in a nearby repairing shop.  While dropping the vehicle other than, the area agreed at the booking time, it is violation of the agreed terms and conditions.  Hence OPs men could not locate the place where the vehicle was left by the complainant and hence it took time for them to locate the same.  After utilizing the said vehicle for two days, complainant negligently left the vehicle without informing OP as to its location, therefore it charged additional amount for late delivery of the vehicle.  

8.      It is further contended that, before handing over the possession of the vehicle, at the commencement of the journey, the vehicle was thoroughly inspected and then only it was handed over to the complainant after due certification.  The car which was handed over to the complainant was in a very good condition in all respect. The allegations and averments made in that respect by the complainant at utterly false and it is to be proved. The excess amount charged as late fee is due to the negligent attitude of the complainant in leaving the vehicle in other place than the agreed one without giving the proper location.  The complainant has filed this complaint on experimental basis and to make gain without any merits and also against to the terms and conditions of the member agreement. There is no deficiency on its part and hence prayed the Commission to dismiss the same.

9.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

10.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

11.   POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is borne out from the record that the complainant for himself and for his family members booked a car on rental from OP at Hyderabad.

        12.   It is the specific case of the complainant that as agreed by OP to provide the car at the ramp of the airport, the same was not provided, whereas, they were asked to walk for about a kilo meter to reach the parking area where the car was parked.  It is also stated that a sum of Rs.500/- was taken as extra charges for the facility of providing the car in the ramp.  From the version, it becomes clear that the OP did not provide the car in the ramp, whereas it made the complainant and his family members to walk all along to the parking area in the airport, which amounts to deficiency in service.

        13.   Though the complainant has stated that the car was not maintained properly and the rubber lining have come out and it was untidy, not kept properly and foul smell of fish emanating, there is no concrete evidence to substantiate the same.

        14.   It is further the case of the complainant that while coming back to the airport, the tyre of the said vehicle got punctured and the same was reported to OPs men. They act in a unprofessional way and asked him to get the punctured repaired with a local person.  It is also his say that it was about three kms., to get the said puncture repaired and as the time was running out to catch the flight. He had to park the car at IKEA place by leaving the key to the authorities there and the same was informed to the OPs men at 8.30 pm., which is the drop out time of the vehicle and according to him, it was just 30 to 40 minutes journey to the airport and purposefully though the location was informed to the OP, in order to charge late fee purposefully, delayed to locate the vehicle and to take its possession and thereby charged as late fee charges, for which he is not liable to pay.  

        15.   According to OP the complainant has entered into the user agreement and is bound by the terms and conditions and he ought to have left the vehicle in the fixed place and since the same was not done and as they could not locate the place wherein the vehicle was parked, it took them 17 hours to locate the same.  

        16.   In the usual and ordinary course, the say of OP that the complainant was to drop the vehicle at the agreed place is acceptable.  On the other hand, in the present case, back tyre of the said vehicle got punctured and thereby he could not proceed to get it repaired as he was not having enough time to get it repaired and proceed to airport to catch the flight.  Hence he left the vehicle in the IKEA along with the key and informed the OP men the place in which the same was parked.  If the complainant had not informed the OP regarding the place in which the vehicle was parked then the contention of OP that it was very difficult for it to locate the vehicle and also to take possession of it, for which, it has spent about 17 hours.  When the complainant himself has spoken to the men of the OP and informed regarding the area of parking and handing over the key, the contention of OP that it took 17 hours for them to locate the vehicle cannot be accepted and it highly probablizes the contentions of the complainant that it was done only to collect late fee per hour.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.

17.   POINT NO.2:

In the result the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.500/- which was collected as conveyance charges at the airport to provide the vehicle in the ramp of airport which was not provided. Since the vehicle got punctured in the middle of the road while coming to the airport, the complainant has to abandon the vehicle and got his own arrangements to reach the airport well in time to catch the flight for which he has paid Rs.1,180/- towards cab charges and the same is also liable to be paid by OP.  The act of OP in charging Rs.7,168/- towards late fee is illegal, unethical and contrary to the principles of law and realty.  It is at liberty to charge late fee only for about 2 to 3 hours delay and cannot charge delay for another 14 hours on a pro-rata basis.  Further for the sufferance and inconvenience caused, OP is also liable to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards litigations expenses.  In the result we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP is directed to pay Rs.500/- which was collected as conveyance charges at the airport, Rs.1,180/- towards cab charges to reach the airport and to charge the complainant only delay charge in handing over the vehicle for a period of three hours only and to refund the balance out of Rs.7,168/-, if recovered and if not recovered only to recover the delay charge for three hours only..
3. OP is further directed to pay  Rs.5,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. The OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Zoom car booking

Ex P2: Copy of the booking completion document

Ex. P3: Copy of the tax invoice for having paid Rs.4,064/- and extra charges on Rs.9,168/-

Ex P4: Copy of the email correspondences

Ex P5: Copies of the grievance details lodged with National Consumer Helpline (2 Nos.)

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Smt.Shreya Mehta

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the Zoom car membership agreement

Ex R2: Copy of the Board resolution submitting me to represent the company

Ex R3: Copy of the Booking details

Ex R4: Copy of the license of the complainant

Ex R5: Copy of the Form 23

Ex R6: Copy of the Policy schedule

Ex R7: Copy of the checklist of the vehicle given by the customer.

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT