Chandigarh District Commission Holds Uber Liable For Charging In Excess Of Contracted Amount

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Uber India liable for unfair trade practice for charging excess fares beyond the contracted amount. It held that Uber cannot escape liability by contending that it is a mere facilitator between the drivers and the customers, as a portion of the payment made by the customer inevitably reaches Uber. Brief Facts: The Complainant booked a Moto Connect ride through the Uber application with Uber India System Pvt. Ltd. The ride was assigned to one Kailash, and the fare displayed at the time of booking was approximately Rs. 53/-. However, the driver charged Rs. 80/- from the Complainant without providing any satisfactory explanation. Despite the Complainant raising the issue with Uber, the Complainant didn't receive any response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Uber. In response, Uber contended that it functions solely as a technology services provider, offering a smartphone application (Uber-app) that serves as a platform connecting driver partners and riders/users. It emphasized that Uber does not provide transportation services, operate as a transportation carrier, or act as an agent for passenger transportation. It argued that the Uber app facilitates driver partners to fulfill transportation requests from users, with the terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties governing their transactions. Users are required to consent to these terms and conditions, acknowledged through a "clickwrap" contract, recognized under the Information Technology Act, 2000. As per this contract, users are bound by the terms and conditions of Uber India. It denied the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission referred to the receipt and noted that despite travelling only 7.82 kilometres, the Complainant was charged Rs. 80.00/- by the driver. The District Commission held that Uber was aware of the Complainant's overcharge of Rs. 27.00, yet no investigation or action was taken against the driver. It held that this failure to address customer grievances implicated Uber, as a portion of the payment made by the customer inevitably reached Uber. Furthermore, the District Commission held that Uber needed to ensure that its employed drivers behaved appropriately and not aggressively. Measures such as training programs or establishing guidelines for drivers were deemed necessary to uphold standards of service. The District Commission condemned the practice of charging excess fares beyond the contracted amount and held Uber liable for unfair trade practices. Consequently, the District Commission directed Uber to refund the excess charge of Rs. 27.00/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5000/- for mental distress. It was also directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the Complainant for the litigation costs and deposit Rs. 20,000/- in the consumer legal aid account maintained by the District Commission.Case Title: Ritvik Garg Vs Uber India System Pvt. Ltd and Anr. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Chandigarh District Commission Holds Uber Liable For Charging In Excess Of Contracted Amount

Smita Singh

Tags