The complainant has instituted the present complaint on 5th December 2016, alleging deficiency against OP, Zoom Cars praying for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) towards mental agony, harassment, and other incidental expenses on account of negligence done by the OP amounting to deficiency in services. A sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) is also prayed for as litigation expenses.
Reply of the OP as well as evidence of both the parties as also written arguments are on record. The contention of the OP is that force majeure clause applies to this case. The specific Honda City car booked by the complainant was not available on the specified dates as the customer who had previously booked the said vehicle had illegally retained the said car without any extension being sought or prior information to OP. It is further stated by the OP that this was conveyed to the Complainant and that further efforts were made to provide an alternate vehicle, however, due to shortage of vehicles the OP could not provide any vehicle to the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant was provided a credit of Rs. 1600/- (driving credits) and negative Inventory credits (Rs. 500) as a goodwill gesture and is an apt compensation for the complainant. The OP has raised a preliminary objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission.
The issue of territorial jurisdiction has already been decided by this Commission vide their orders dated 13th February 2017 and thereafter 28th November 2018. These orders have since attained finality therefore, we proceed to decide the complaint on merits.
After going through the facts of this complaint this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service in the above mentioned case however the OP on its part, had without raising any issue refunded the entire money to the complainant along with some benefit to be claimed later.
Although the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as compensation for himself and his family, he has not led any positive evidence to support his contention. He has relied upon a mail dated 23rd August 2016 marked as Ex-CW-1/8 wherein the OP had regretted inconvenience caused to the complainant and stated that refund and the points were the best they could do under the circumstances. It is trite in law that the quantum of compensation will depend upon the loss suffered by the consumer and the burden of proving the loss will always be on the complainant and if there is no proof, no relief could be granted as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd. v. Dolphin International Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5759 of 2009) decided on 06.10.2021.
In the facts of the case the compensation sought is not based on any actual loss however certain facts have to be considered firstly, the complainant was stranded along with his family in a different city and secondly, the vacation of the complainant started on a sour note due to inaction on the part of the OP. Therefore, it would be proper, just and equitable to impose a compensation of Rs. 7500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) for the period of three days for which the booking was done by the complainant. No cost as to litigation. The amount of compensation is to be paid within two months from the date of this order failing which the OP would have to pay
Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
File be consigned to record room after giving copy of the order to the parties.
