SRI MARUTHI VADDAR

       MEMBER

      The Complaint was initiated U/S 35 of the CP Act 2019 by the complainant Javeed Pasha R/o Mysuru agaist Zoomcare Self Drive Cars,           Kodihalli, Bangalore alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party praying this commission to          pass an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 17,989/- along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of availing service        till payment of the entire amount being the amount due to the complainant from opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-                    compensation for trauma, tension, mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant by the deficiency in service and unfair trade               practice of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs as the                Hon’ble Commission deems it fit to grant and award during circumstances of the complaint.

          The gist of the complaint in brief is as here under:-

1.  It is stated in the complaint that, the complainant is an employee of a private organisation and his job needs frequent travel within and out of station.  Being lured by the advertisement of the opposite parties on social media decided to avail the services of the opposite parties for commuting.  The opposite party No.1 is the Registered office and opposite party No.2 is the branch office and has numerous branches across India.  The business of the opposite parties to provide self drive car rental service without the hassle of owning a car.  The complainant availed the service of the opposite parties through online application in the following manner.

2. It is further stated that the opposite parties used to collect the payments in advance and after the service is availed and the car is returned, after calculating the charges the excess amount is refunded.  Since all the payments are collected online, refunds are also to be processed online immediately.  There is an obligation on opposite party to refund the excess amount collected by them at the time of booking, deliberately the opposite parties is not refunding the money.  The complainant has addressed several emails and the opposite party has acknowledged the refund but till today no refund has been initiated.  The opposite parties at the time of availing service and whilst advertising their service have constantly assured that they are prompt in providing hassle free booking, good conditioned vehicle but all their advertisements and assurances are utterly false and tend to mislead which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. The opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs.17,989/- without any reason.  The opposite party retaining the money of the complainant which putting the complainant under tremendous pressure, tension and annoyance.  There is no obligation of the complainant towards the opposite party and all services availed by the opposite party is on pre-paid basis.  Hence this complaint.
4. After registration of the complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties and in response to the notice the opposite party No.2 was not appeared in spite of service of summons and hence he placed exparte opposite party No.1 appeared through his counsel and has filed the detailed version contending that the above complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  There has been no negligence or deficiency of service whatsoever on the part of the opposite parties in dealing with the concerned services, thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Opposite parties further contended that, the acts of the opposite parties are in terms of the booking agreement/fee policy and the allegation of deficiency of service does not arise as the complainant had not produced any documents to substantiate the loss caused to him.  The complainant has availed the service of the opposite party and booked the trips accordingly.  Since the complainant is a well educated person and not a novice to the concept of rent a Cab as he was a frequent traveller. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that he has availed the services without knowing the terms of the booking agreement and fee policy which he was availing the service of the opposite party.  The complainant has agreed for the terms of the booking agreement of opposite party before availing the service through online by paying advance payment and accordingly booked this trips.  The opposite party was refunded the amount as per the terms of member agreement to the complainant.  The details of the payment mentioned as below.

1. JPS6N2LFQ- Rs. 1844/- settled on 08.04.2021- Rs. 1644/-
2. JPS6N2L9Q- Rs. 7203/- settled on 05.04.2021- Rs. 7003/-
3. JPS6N2EAA- Rs. 7551/- settled on 06.05.2021- Rs. 7351/-
4. JPS6N4B9M- Rs. 500/-   settled on 06.05.2021- Rs. 500/-
5. JPS6N4JWP- Rs. 800/-    settled on 06.05.2021- Rs. 800/-

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is imaginary and unsustainable in the eye of law and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

6. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and the same was taken a PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1.  On the other hand opposite party has filed its affidavit through its Deputy Manager legal and the same was taken as RW1.  But did not chose to mark any documents
7. Heard the Arguments of the complainant.
8. Now the points that arise for the consideration of this commission are:

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought?
2. What order?

9. The Commission findings on the above points is as here under:

               Point No.1:-  Partly in the affirmative

   Point No.2:- As per the final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10. Point No.1: It is the case of the complainant that, being lured by the advertisement of the opposite parties on social media decided to avail the services of the opposite parties for commuting.  The business  of the opposite parties to provide self drive car rental service without the hassle of owning a car.  The complainant availed the services of the opposite parties through online.  Opposite parties used to collect the payment in advance and after the service is availed and the car is returned, after calculating the charges the excess amount is refunded, after calculating the charges the excess amount is refunded.  Since all the payments are collected online, refunds are also to be processed online immediately.  The opposite parties has to refund the excess amount of the complainant.  The complainant has addressed several emails and the opposite party has acknowledged the refund but till today no refund has been initiated.  The opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 17,989/-.  Without any reason opposite party retaining the money of the complainant which putting the complainant under tremendous pressure, tension and annoyance.
11. According to opposite parties, the complainant has availed the service of the opposite party and booked the trips accordingly.  Since the complainant is a well educated person and not a novice to the concept of rent a cab as he was a frequent traveller.  Therefore it cannot be assumed that he has availed the services without knowing the terms of the booking agreement and fee policy while he was availing the service of the opposite party by paying advance amount and accordingly booked the trips the opposite party has refunded the amount as per the terms of member agreement to the complainant.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is imaginary and unsustainable in the eye of law.
12. After looking into the rival contentions of both parties and the documents submitted by them, it is observed that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties through online.  Opposite parties used to collect the payment in advance and after the service is availed and the car is returned, after calculating charges the excess amount is refunded.  Likewise opposite party has to refund the excess amount of the complainant.  The complainant has addressed several emails and the opposite party has acknowledged the refund.  Opposite party has said that he has refunded the amount a per the terms of the member agreement.  The opposite party has pleaded in it version as well as in the affidavit evidence about the refund of the amount to the complainant.  It has also filed a memo on 24/02/2022 stating that it has already refunded the amount due to the complainant prior to the issuance of the summons.  But no document has been produced by the opposite party.  Mere pleading without document will not give any benefit in favour of the opposite party.  Though the opposite party contended that it has already paid the amount.  But the complainant counsel submits that he will proceed the matter.  Opposite party has not produced any document to show about the refund of the money to the complainant, except filing memo.  Hence it would meet the ends of justice if the opposite party is directed to refund the amount if not paid.  Hence we answer this point as partly affirmative.
13. Point No.2:- From the above said discussions, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER:

The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.

The opposite party is liable to refund Rs. 17,989/- to the complainant if not refundedwithin one month from the date of the order.

Opposite parties are also liable to pay Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for having caused mental agony etc by way of deficiency of service and Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of this proceedingwithin one month from the date of this order.In default the opposite parties are liable to pay interest at 8% per annum to the awarded amount of Rs. 17,989+4,000+3,000=24,989 till its payment.

The complainant is at liberty to take action U/S 72 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for non-compliance of this order from opposite party.

14.   Furnish free copy of the order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 29^th April, 2023)