Why do we book online app-based taxis? Most do it to conveniently travel from point A to B. However, this convenience cost a South Delhi doctor to miss his Vistara flight and he had to pay double the price to take another flight on the same day. All of this happened because at 3.15 AM when the doctor booked an Uber ride, the taxi driver, who took his booking, failed to turn up despite confirming the booking.
The doctor also alleged when he tried to contact Uber’s customer support, they were non-responsive. The doctor contended that he was waiting for the Uber taxi to arrive, as he was under the impression that the driver would come on time, since he confirmed the booking. It was only when a significant amount of time had passed, he noticed that the taxi was not moving towards his home’s. When he called the driver, he did not pick up the call. After this the doctor cancelled the booking and tried to find a local taxi. However, by the time he found a local taxi and reached the airport, the booked flight had already departed.
The doctor filed a case against Uber India in the district consumer commission where the judgement was passed ex-parte as Uber India failed to attend any of the hearings of the case. When the district consumer commission’s judgement was pronounced against Uber India, then they filed an appeal in Delhi Consumer Commission, and it is here the fight started between Uber and the doctor. Interestingly, Delhi State Consumer Commission also found Uber India guilty of unfair trade practice and ruled in favour of the doctor.
Why did the District Consumer Commission find Uber India guilty? As per the judgement of the district consumer commission, here’s what the commission found out:
● “The case of the complainant (doctor) is that he has booked an Uber Taxi on 29/11/2021 for Indira Gandhi International Airport at 3.15 AM. The driver of the Uber Taxi did not turn up and the complainant had to go by private Taxi but could not take his flight for Indore due to negligence of the OP (Uber India).
● The complainant purchased the second ticket for double the price for Indore in the evening. The complainant could not attend the function properly due to the act of Uber Taxi.
● The complainant could not stay even 12 hours with his family as he had booked the return tickets in advance. No evidence at all was led by OP (Uber Taxi) explaining the non-arrival of Uber Taxi at the residence of the complainant.
● The OP was required to lead the evidence and expected the non-arrival of and prove that delay in arriving occurred because of the reason beyond their control. At least the OP was required to explain the delay which the OP has failed.
● It cannot be disputed that every passenger’s time is precious, and they might have booked the air ticket for a further journey, like in the present case from Indira Gandhi International Airport to Indore. Therefore, unless and until the evidence is laid explaining the delay and it is established and proved that delay occurred which was beyond the control and or even there was some justifications for delay, the Uber taxi is liable to pay the compensation for delay.
● Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any evidence to explain the delay, there is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
● Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund Rs 24,100 for purchasing second air tickets due to delay of Uber Taxi along with Rs 30,000 lump sum for mental agony and litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay entire amount with interest @ 6% per annum till realization.”
Uber India says it’s an aggregator and cannot be held liable for deficiency of service by the driver Uber India filed an appeal before Delhi State Commission and raised the following arguments against the order of the district commission:
● It did not receive any notice or summons from either the District Commission or the Respondent/Complainant at its registered or corporate offices, and thus had no knowledge of the pendency of the consumer complaint, bearing CC No. 44 of 2022.
● The impugned judgment, while acknowledging the absence of a defense on its part, fails to provide any specific finding to justify the conclusion that there was a deficiency of service.
● It is emphasized that it merely acts as an aggregator and facilitator, providing a common platform for independent driver-partners and riders to connect for transportation services. As such, the Appellant (Uber India) cannot be held liable for any actions or omissions by the driver partners, including cancellations, refusals, or delays in service.
● In the present case, the Respondent did not use the Uber platform to request another driver, and instead chose to search for a local taxi at odd hours in New Delhi, which contributed to the delay in reaching the airport and missing the flight.
Delhi State Consumer Commission finds Uber India guilty of providing a deficient service Delhi State Consumer Commission investigated the matter and came to the following conclusion:
● The Appellant’s (Uber India) assertion that it was not served with any notice or summons is, however, contradicted by the record.
● The Appellant (Uber India), despite being provided with ample opportunity to appear before the District Commission, failed to do so and was consequently proceeded with ex-parte. Therefore, the Appellant’s claim of a violation of the settled principles of natural justice is without merit and stands refuted.
● Further, the Appellant’s argument that it merely acts as an aggregator and, therefore, cannot be held liable for the actions or inactions of the driver partners is without merit and fails to address the core issue at hand. While it is true that the Appellant provides a platform for connecting riders and independent driver-partners, it is equally true that the A
Read More