Bangalore Consumer Court directed Ola to pay 15,000 to a customer for deficiency in service

Case: Vikas Bhusan v. Bhavish Aggarwal

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bangalore has ordered Ola, a cab aggregator app, to pay a customer compensation of ₹15,000 for deficient service. The customer had complained that the air-conditioning in the cab was not working during his 8-hour trip, causing inconvenience and mental agony. The commission ruled that Ola had committed a deficiency of service and an unfair trade practice by not providing the promised service of air-conditioning.

In October 2021, a customer of Ola cab service hired a cab for an 8-hour, 80-km trip with his colleagues. He reported that the air-conditioning in the cab was not working throughout the entire trip. The customer attempted to address the issue during the trip but found that there was no mechanism to do so and that canceling the trip would result in the loss of the booking fee. He contacted Ola's customer service the same day to demand a refund, but the company stated that there was no additional charge for air-conditioning and therefore could not provide a refund.

The customer escalated the issue to Ola's senior management, but the company only issued a refund of ₹100 without discussing the matter with the customer. Dissatisfied, the customer filed a complaint with the National Consumer Helpline for deficiency in service and sought compensation of ₹50,000 and a refund of the booking amount of ₹1,837 with interest. Ola filed a response to the legal notice but it was rejected by the Commission due to the lapse of 45 days.

The Commission noted that Ola had not appeared to argue or filed written arguments despite being given the opportunity and that Ola's website and app indicated that their cabs in the relevant category were equipped with air-conditioning and extra legroom.

The Commission ruled that Ola's refund of ₹100 for deficiency in service indicated that the company had admitted that the air-conditioning was not working, even though the full booking amount had been collected. The Commission stated that it was Ola's duty to provide services as promised and found that the company had provided deficient service. As a result, the customer was entitled to relief.

The Commission noted that Ola's behavior was "very unfair" and ordered the company to refund the booking amount with interest of 10% per annum from the date of the complaint until the time of repayment. Additionally, the company was ordered to pay the customer a compensation of ₹10,000 and ₹5,000 for litigation expenses.