BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.761-2015

DATED ON THIS THE 7^th October 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C,

Member,

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties and seeking a direction to remove her name from the black list of the customer and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards hardship, insult, inconvenience, mental agony, depression, expenditure, waste of time and sufferings due to deficiency in service and to refund Rs.692.98 with interest and to close her membership with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant opened an account with opposite parties to avail the car services on 17.05.2015, by depositing Rs.1,500/-, she made use of the services on different dates. On 19.05.2015, she denied the payment, when demanded in excess by the opposite party’;s taxi driver, as there was sufficient balance in her wallet.  Opposite parties did not deducted the amount.  On 13.06.2015, the opposite parties denied the taxi services to her and informed her account is put into black list, due to non-payment of taxi service charges on 19.05.2015.  The customer care executives at the call centres at Mysuru, Bangalore and Chennai contacted and they fail to resolve the issue.  The complainant repeatedly contacted the opposite parties for clarifications, but in vain.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed complaint seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite parties in its version pleaded that, it is engaged in the business of providing an online platform for cab/taxi/car services, by the third party transport service providers through online “Transport Facilitation Platform”(a mobile application) called “TFS”.  The opposite parties are only helping or assisting the commuters to get access to the cabs, available in the nearest locations.  The opposite parties does not own any cabs or provide any taxi service.  It denies the deposit of any amount to use the TFS software or opening of any account.  The user of the TFS software has a option to pay the taxi fare by cash and also by recharging any amount to pay the 3^rd party own taxi fare.  The complainant got recharged by paying Rs.1,500/- to pay the taxi fare provided by the 3^rd party owned cabs. 
4.     It is clear that, the amount was utilised for payment of 3^rd party owned taxi fares, the fare depends on fare per kilometre, ride time charges and minimum fare with minimum kilometre has been explained to the complainant, even then complainant was adamant.  Further, the advance booking on 30.10.2015 was not confirm as the opposite party’s TFS does not allow advance booking and the same has been communicated to the complainant through SMS and suggested to book the taxi 15 minutes prior to pickup time.  From this, it is clear that the complainant account is live and active.  The complainant never demanded for refund of Rs.693/- prior to filing of this complaint, hence the same has been refunded by demand draft on 16.02.2016.  As such, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5.     To establish the facts, the complainant lead her evidence by filing affidavit and relied on documents.  The opposite party lead its evidence belatedly.  Both parties counsel  submitted oral arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.

6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant established the negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, in not providing taxi services and black listing her name and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant alleged that the opposite parties are running online car rental service center to provide taxi services for their account holders.  She had opened an account with opposite parties for pick up and drop of her children between Chennai Airport to Mysore.  The transaction ID on taxi for sure (TFS) for payment made in wallet on 17.05.2015 through TID No.239722 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,500/-.  The driver demanded abnormal charges for usuage of the taxi services, on 17.05.2015.  The complainant opposed to pay the amount as demanded and asked to deduct from the wallet.  The opposite parties deducted the amount after filing of the complaint and repaid the balance amount, which is received under protest by the complainant.
9.    On 13.06.2015, the opposite parties denied their services and informed the complainant, that they have black listed her name.  Thereby, the opposite parties made the complainant to suffer mentally, despite of having sufficient balance in her wallet.  Aggrieved by the act of opposite parties, the complainant alleged the deficiency in service by opposite parties and sought for the reliefs.
10. The opposite parties contended that, they are not the service provides, but helps the customers/commuters by use of the software “Tax for sure”, (TFS) a mobile application. The taxi drivers subscribed to opposite parties software get the bookings and the customers/commuters have an easy access to the cabs, subscribed to the TFS.  It is contends that the user of TFS software has a option to pay the taxi fare by cash and also by recharging any amount to pay to the 3^rd party owned taxi fare.  The complainant got recharged for a sum of Rs.1,500/- to pay the taxi fare, towards the service provided by the 3^rd party owned cabs.  Hence, the opposite parties denied the allegations and deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence and contends they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  As such, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. The Taxi for sure (TFS) software is a free mobile application, which provides an online platform for the taxi/cab services, by connecting the passengers to the third party Transport service providers (i.e. cab/car operators).  The opposite parties does not own or lease any vehicles nor hires, or engages or employ any drivers.  The operators subscribed to the TFS get the bookings and the passengers subscribed to the TFS software too, get the access to each other.  Thereby, the opposite parties are assisting the subscriber of TFS software to get the assistance of service providers in the nearby locations  by way of recharging the account and the money deposited in opposite parties wallet.
12. The user has to pay the service charges demanded by the 3^rd party owned cab/car service provider.  The user of the TFS software has the option to pay taxi fare by cash and also by recharging any amount to pay to the 3^rd party owned taxi/cab fare.  The complainant had the option to utilise the amount of Rs.1,500/- for the service provided by the 3^rd party.  When the complainant refused to make payment, to avoid further issues, the TFS has changed the fare and the remaining amount was paid by the TFS to the 3^rd party owned cab.  The apology sought on 16.06.2015, confirms that, the opposite party surely had the nexus with the complainant as its customer and provided services for a consideration.  Hence, the opposite party has refunded Rs.693/- deposited with it.
13. Accordingly, we opine that there is lapse on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for reliefs from opposite parties.  In view of the above, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
14. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to remove the name of the complainant from the black list and extend services in future without any kind of short-comings.
3. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay Rs.2,500/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceeding to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  In default, to comply, the opposite party shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said sum from the date of complaint, until payment made.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(D