Tiruvannamalai District Commission Holds Zoom Car Liable For Renting Defective Car And Failure To Provide Prompt Assistance

Brief Facts:

The Complainant booked a self-driven Triber MT Petrol through Zoom Car's website for a trip and made a payment of Rs. 10,749/-. Upon arrival at Coimbatore International Airport, the Complainant discovered damage to the driver-side wheel hub during the exterior checklist, which was not disclosed earlier by Zoom Car. Despite this, the Complainant proceeded to Ooty but encountered a severe malfunction — the tie rod of the driver-side wheel snapped which made the car immovable on the same day. Efforts to seek immediate assistance from Zoom Car's roadside assistance were allegedly unproductive. Subsequently, despite the car being in Zoom Car's custody, the Complainant faced delays and difficulties in closing the booking and obtaining a refund. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu (“District Commission”) against Zoom Car.

In response, Zoom Car argued that the vehicle was in good condition upon delivery and blamed the Complainant's driving for the subsequent mechanical failure. It argued that improper handling by the Complainant led to the steering becoming unresponsive and the wheel damage. Zoom Car also contended that it adhered to its refund policy by refunding Rs. 11,344/- to the Complainant's account and argued that the Complainant failed to substantiate claims related to additional costs incurred for petrol.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held that there was a lack of substantive evidence from Zoom Car to support its claims of the Complainant's negligence in driving. It held that Zoom Car failed to uphold its duty of care and service standards towards the Complainant.

The District Commission noted that while attempting to park near a restaurant, the steering wheel suddenly became non-responsive which revealed that the tie rod of the driver-side wheel was completely severed. Despite the Complainant's persistent requests for assistance and refund, Zoom Car remained unresponsive to resolve the issue promptly. Instead, it unilaterally credited Rs. 11,344/- to the complainant's account, ostensibly to close the booking, without adequately addressing the Complainant's grievances or providing documentary evidence to support its actions. Therefore, the District Commission held Zoom Car liable for deficiency in service towards the Complainant. It held that Zoom Car's failure to provide timely assistance, acknowledge the severity of the vehicle malfunction, and its negligent handling of the situation demonstrated a disregard for customer satisfaction and contractual obligations.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Zoom Car to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Mr. S. Diwakar vs Zoomcar India Private Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No. 16/2024

Date of Order: 15/05/2024