Delayed Delivery Of Rental Car, Lack Of Communication, Hyderabad Commission Holds Zoom Cars Services Liable

Brief Facts of the Case:

Rajender Khanna (“Complainant”), a practicing advocate residing in Shalibanda, Hyderabad, booked a Hyundai i-10 car through Zoom Cars India Private Limited (“Zoom Cars”) mobile application for a rental on April 8, 2022. The booking was confirmed via SMS, with delivery scheduled for 10 a.m. at Vijayawada railway station and a return time of 7 p.m. the same day. The complainant made an online payment of Rs. 1,609 for the booking.

However, on the day of the rental, the car was not delivered at the agreed-upon time. The complainant reached Vijayawada from Hyderabad at 4 a.m., and despite repeatedly contacting Zoom Cars’ customer care, the car was delivered only at 11:20 a.m., causing him to miss an important court appearance at the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amaravati.

Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (“District Commission”). The complainant alleged that not only did Zoom Cars fail to provide the booked vehicle on time, but they also changed the delivery time without proper communication. He claimed that this unprofessional behaviour caused him financial losses and mental distress. He sought compensation for various expenses incurred due to the delay, including travel costs, accommodation, and the impact on his professional practice.

In response, Zoom Cars countered by stating that they were a reputable self-drive car rental service with operations spanning numerous cities. They acknowledged that the originally booked Hyundai i-10 car was unavailable, but they emphasized that the complainant was promptly offered an alternative car, an Alto. The company maintained that the complainant consented to this change in vehicle. Zoom Cars also argued that any changes in the delivery time were communicated to the complainant and were made in agreement with him. They stressed that the complainant was informed of the adjusted delivery time, which was moved from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. However, Zoom Cars disputed the complainant’s claim that the car was not provided on time, asserting that the alternative Alto car was indeed delivered within the agreed-upon time frame.

Observations of the Commission:

Based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, contentions, and legal principles, the District Commission concluded that Zoom Cars' actions indeed constituted a deficiency in service. The company's lack of proper communication, leading to the delayed delivery and subsequent consequences for the complainant, was deemed a violation of their commitment and service standards.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Zoom Car to restore the complainant's account. Further, it directed the company to refund the late return charges of Rs. 228 that were wrongly levied. Further, the District Commission asked the company to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the mental agony caused to the complainant. District Commission emphasized that Zoom Cars’ actions were not only deficient in service but also demonstrated unfair trade practices.

Case: Rajender Khanna vs Zoom Cars India Private Limited

Case No.: CC/530/2022

Advocate for the Appellant: Khanna Law Associates

Advocate for the Respondent: M/s Rajashehar Reddy J

Click Here To Read/Download Order