Haryana

Panchkula

CC/199/2021

PUNEET KULSHRESTHA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZOPRENT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

26 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

                                                      

Consumer Complaint No	:	199 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	30.03.2021
Date of Decision	:	26.04.2022

 

 

Sh. Puneet Kulshrestha, S/o H.C.Kulshrestha, R/o Apartment 17, GH21, Sector-5, Mansa Devi Complex, Punchkula-134114

                                                                ….Complainant.

 

Versus

1.     Zop Rent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Sriram Bldg, #1/1 BDS       Gardens Road, Geddalahalli, Hennur Main Road, Bengaluru,    Karnataka-560077

2.     Jag Cab(Hub-ZopRent Technologies Pvt. Ltd.)SCO-146, First Floor,      near DHL Express, Sector-34A, Chandigarh-160022.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.SushmaGarg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 04.10.2021.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2021.

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.                The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has booked a rental car on 02.01.2021 via Booking PNR#1610853834460 issued by ZopRent Technologies Pvt. Ltd.(OP No.1) for rental vehicle Mahindra XUV500 with Registration number PB01 NO968 to visit Amritsar for 03.01.2021 and return back  on 05.01.2021 and nearby excursions in Punjab alongwith his family and family of his friend and made payment of Rs.16,732/- which included Rs.6,000/-as refundable security deposit. On 02.01.2021, complainant received email confirming booking of the vehicle. The complainant reached the location on the scheduled pick-up time and found that there was a small cabin which was locked and there were no personnel of ZopRent present at the location. The agent of OP No.2 arrived at 09.00a.m. after a delay of 2 hours at a location in different state instead of location of pickup. It is also stated that vehicle was in very dirty, filthy and without sanitized before handing over to him. While, checking the insurance policy, it was found that the validity of insurance policy is already expired on 23.12.2020. The Agent of OPs assured the complainant that vehicle is fully insured and he should carry on with his journey and he will sent electronic copy within few minutes.  It is stated that he is already late by more than 2 hours due to delay in handing over vehicle to him. On the way to Amritsar near Kurali Junction of NH205, cops stopped them and found that the insurance has expired. After many requests and he spoke to agent of ZopRent–Hub, they permit him to continue his journey. During evening, the complainant noticed that left side headlight of the vehicle was also not working. On 04.01.2020 at 10:23 a.m., agent of Zop-Rent hub came to hotel of complainant and took the vehicle in their possession and vehicle was returned to complainant at 12noon in spite of commitment that he will get it back by 11AM after repair. Still, insurance policy was not delivered to complainant although headlight was repaired. On 04.01.2022 at 02.45 AM near a marketplace in Amritsar, local police stopped them to see all papers of vehicle and complainant showed all papers to them except insurance papers. The local police threatened to issue challan and make him stand with them for around 45 minutes in front of his companion travelers including children.  After lot of pleading and explaining whole situation, showing whatsapp messages, they permitted him to make a call to agents of OPs. At 04:20 PM, complainant received insurance policy from OPs which he produced in front of police and they let him go with warning. It is also stated that the complainant contacted the OPs on whatsapp and requested them to extend the booking by 2 hours and the OPs informed that it will charge him Rs.300+taxes, which complainant agreed. On 05.01.2020 at 08:30 PM complainant handed over the vehicle to agents of OPs and eventually Rs.5,500 were transferred to his account after deduction of Rs.500 instead of Rs.6,000. The complainant has also served a legal notice dated  20.01.2021 upon the OPs but no reply received from the OPs. Due to the acts and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs through registered posts and which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OPs; hence, they were deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 04.10.2021 & 30.11.2021 respectively.

3.             The complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-20 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the complainant, considered the written arguments filed by the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.             During the arguments, the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint wherein lapse and deficiency has been alleged on several counts. On the basis of the evidence tendered on record, the complainant prayed for acceptance of the complaint by directing the OPs to pay the compensation as claimed in the prayer clause of the complaint. The lapses and deficiencies as pointed out in the complaint as well as affidavit Annexure C-A may be summarized as under:-

i.      That the rental vehicle, namely, Mahindra XUV 500 bearing  registration no.PB01 N0968 was delivered with the delay of 2 hours         and at a different location instead of location of the pick-up.

ii.      That the vehicle was handed over in bad condition without proper  sanitization.

iii.     That the said vehicle was stopped by the representative of Ops,  while  en-route to Amritsar, for taking the photographs of the car in         connection with the issuance of insurance policy, for want of which,   journey was interrupted twice by the police thereby wasting the    time of the complainant and his family members.

iv.     That one head light of the said vehicle was not working thereby  preventing the complainant to visit several tourist places at    Amritsar.

iv.     That the rental vehicle was provided without any insurance  coverage.

v.     That a sum of Rs.500/- was deducted from rental security despite   the fact that vehicle was handed over back to the agent of OP No.2     in good condition.

6.             The aforementioned alleged lapses and deficiencies on the part of the OPs are duly corroborated and substantiated by the complainant vide his affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents placed on record as Annexure C-1 to C-20.

7.             Evidently, the booking was made by the complainant with OP No.1 for delivery of rental vehicle, which was confirmed on the basis of payment amounting to Rs.16,732/- as per Annexure C-1 & C-2. A perusal of copy of insurance policy(Annexure C-4) further proves the contentions of the complainant that the said vehicle was provided without any insurance coverage. The e-mail(Annexure C-16) sent by the complainant to OPs followed by legal notice (Annexure C-17 & C-18) failed to evoke any positive response from the side of the OPs. In the present complaint, the OPs have preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent from the proceedings of the present complaint and thus, were proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notices shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

8.                In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OPs are liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

 9.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.500/-, as deducted illegally out of the refundable security amounting to Rs.6,000/-, to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

10.            The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced on: 26.04.2022

 

                Dr.Sushma Garg      Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini    Satpal

                    Member                   Member                  President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                           Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                                Member