Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/788/2021

Pragati Bhatt - Complainant(s)

Versus

OLA Cabs - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/788/2021
Date of Institution	:	15/11/2021
Date of Decision	:	08/09/2023

 

Pragati Bhatt D/o Ram Kumar, R/o 667, Sector 44, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. OLA Cabs, Regd. Office ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Regent Insignia, 414, 3^rd Floor, 4^th Block, 17^th Main, 100 ft. Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru.
2. Bhavish Aggarwal, CEO, OLA Cabs, Regd. Office ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Regent Insignia, 414, 3^rd Floor, 4^th Block, 17^th Main, 100 ft. Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru.
3. ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.301-302, 2^nd Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh through CEO.

2^nd address:

     Plot No.66, 4^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Ms.Pramanshi, Advocate for OPs.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had booked a ride from OP Jindal University main gate to Sector 43, Chandigarh. On 25.10.2019 using OLA outstation service, the total cab fare charged was Rs.5618/-. It is submitted that the cab fare was wrongfully overcharged by Rs.3101/-. The original cab fare was Rs.2517/-, but the complainant was forced to pay the extra cash due to the driver’s adamant stance. Thereafter, a phone call was made to OLA customer care on the same night of 25.10.2019 and it was confirmed and admitted by the OLA customer care. It was promised by the OLA support that since the ride was wrongfully charged, the company shall process a refund via a bank account transfer. It was promised that the refund would be processed within 15-20 days. Despite repeated follow ups there was no response from the OPs and the complainant was harassed by the redundant service of the OPs. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the beneficiary has been charged according to the distance she has travelled, no extra charge has been taken from the customer. It is also stated that the OP has no role in calculating the distance travelled/duration of the trip. The OP merely calculates the estimated fare from the information provided to them by the google map. It’s the user right and discretion, as per its convenient, to direct the driver/rider partner to start or stop or change route, after starting of the ride. The terms and conditions also clearly state that the OP does not guarantee or provide assurance in respect of the behavior or actions of its drivers/rider partners. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of the complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that she was overcharged the amount of travel from Sonipat to Chandigarh by the OP No.1 & 2.
7.     On perusal of Annexure C-1, it is observed that the complainant has availed only one way trip from Sonipat to Chandigarh and the travel time was only 3 hrs 43 minutes and the travel was done during night hours. It is also observed that the complainant has been charged for travel of 524 km. There appears to be an error in the software of the OP system that once the complainant travelled for a smaller distance, how she was charged for more that double of the distance travelled.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the OP No.1 & 2 are found to have indulged in unfair trade practice by overcharging the amount and this has caused a lot of mental harassment to the complainant.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. to refund the excess fare charged i.e., amount of ₹2740/- charged for additional distance as shown in bill, but not travelled.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as lump sum compensation for causing mental harassment & towards litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
11.     The consumer complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
08/09/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member