Delhi State Commission Rules That Non-Arrival Of Uber Taxi On Time And Subsequently Not Redressing Issue Amounts To Deficiency In Srvice

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Justice Pinki and Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal has upheld the order passed by the District Commission which held that non-arrival of Uber taxi on time and subsequent failure to resolve the issue is a 'deficiency in service' on the part of Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. The cab service provider has been ordered to pay Rs. 24,100/- to the Complainants which they were forced to incur due to the Company's fault. Further, a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- has been ordered to be paid for mental agony and litigation charges. Brief Background: The Complainant booked a taxi on the Uber application at 03:15 AM so as to reach Indira Gandhi International Airport. However, the driver named Dileep Yadav failed to turn up. Repeated calls were made by the Complainant to the Company raising this issue but there was no adequate response from the Company's side. The Complainant then cancelled the Uber cab and reached the airport through a local taxi at 05.15 AM. However, due to the prolonged delay, the Complainant along with his wife missed their flight from Delhi to Indore. Thereafter, they booked a second flight to Indore by paying double price for the tickets as they were to attend an important family function. Moreover, they could not even spend 12 hours with their family in Indore as they had already booked return tickets to Delhi in advance. Repeated efforts were made by the Complainant to take up the issue with the Company. A legal notice dated 23.11.2021 was also served to Uber India but no response was received. Hence, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint in the Delhi district Commission praying for appropriate compensation. District Commission's observations: The District Commission ordered a refund of Rs. 24,100 to be paid by the Company to the Complainant for purchase of expensive tickets. The Company was also made liable to pay Rs. 30,000 towards mental agony and litigation costs. The Commission observed that there was neither any evidence produced nor sufficient reasons given by the Company justifying the non-arrival of Uber taxi. Therefore, the negligence of the Company is a 'deficiency of service' and unfair trade practice thereby entitling the Complainant to compensation. Proceedings before the Delhi State Commission: The above decision of the Delhi District Commission was challenged before the Delhi State Commission by Uber India. Arguments by Uber India: A preliminary contention raised on behalf of the Company was that it was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present its case before the District Commission. It was argued that there is no 'deficiency in service' in the present case. The primary argument was that Uber functions as a cab-service aggregator and facilitator and the company cannot be made liable for the default of drivers. Moreover, there is an option on the Uber app to request an alternate ride. But the Complainant did not choose to avail that mechanism and instead searched for a local taxi due to which the delay occurred. Arguments by the Complainant: The Complainant argued that the decision of the District Commission is justified and has been passed after considering the merits of the case. The Commission has rightly decided the matter ex-parte as notices and summons were duly served to the Company to enable them to contest the matter. Issues and observations: Whether the Company was given an adequate opportunity to present its case before the District Commission? The State Commission went through the documents on record and observed that notices were duly served by the District Commission to the Company through appropriate modes. Thus, the argument regarding non-service of notice and summons was rejected as the Company was provided with sufficient opportunities to appear and lead evidence. Whether there was a 'deficiency in service' by Uber India in the present case? The argument of the Company that it cannot be made liable for the independent actions/inactions on the part of drivers was rejected. The bench observed that though the Company provides a platform for facilitation of transportation services, there exists an obligation on its part to ensure that services are provided satisfactorily and in a timely manner to the consumers. Moreover, the Company has failed to produce any evidence which justifies the cause of delay in the present case. As regards the argument of not requesting another driver on the Uber app, the bench emphasized on the fact that since Uber India functions as an aggregator and facilitator, it should have provided a timely and viable alternative to the complainant. Failure to redress the grievance of the Complainant in due time highlights the lack of responsibility in ensuring a seamless customer experience. Thus, it was held that there was a 'deficiency in...

Delhi State Commission Rules That Non-Arrival Of Uber Taxi On Time And Subsequently Not Redressing Issue Amounts To Deficiency In Srvice

Aakanksha Bajoria

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aakanksha Bajoria

Delhi State Commission Rules That Non-Arrival Of Uber Taxi On Time And Subsequently Not Redressing Issue Amounts To Deficiency In Srvice

Aakanksha Bajoria

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aakanksha Bajoria

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers