For charging ₹27 extra from a passenger for a cab ride, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has fined cab aggregator Uber ₹28,027.
Ritvik Garg, from Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, had filed a complaint against the managing directors of Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd (UISPL) at Navi Mumbai and Chandigarh.
He stated that on September 19, 2022, he had booked a “moto connect” ride through the Uber mobile app from Sector 21-A to Modern Housing Complex, Sector 13, Chandigarh. The fare shown at the time of booking was ₹53. However, the driver had charged him ₹80.
Garg tried raising this issue with the company, but to no avail. As a last resort, he filed a consumer complaint.
In their reply, the opposite party (OP) stated that UISPL was a technology services provider that merely provided software (Uber app) on smartphones, which acted as a common platform for the driver partners and passengers to interact directly for the purpose of providing and availing of taxi services.
Denying the allegations, they added that a user, prior to signing up on the app, had to affirmatively click on the “agree” button and accept the terms of service and privacy policy. This form of consent was recognised all around the world, including India, they said.
However, the commission observed: “Complainant or anybody else (layman) does not know intricacies of contract between Uber and its drivers. Rather as and when one avails of online services through the known or branded concern, they expect to have contract with this branded concern and not with the hidden partner of the branded service provider.”
{{/usCountry}}However, the commission observed: “Complainant or anybody else (layman) does not know intricacies of contract between Uber and its drivers. Rather as and when one avails of online services through the known or branded concern, they expect to have contract with this branded concern and not with the hidden partner of the branded service provider.”
{{/usCountry}}It added that the OP escaped from liability under the garb of hidden contract between them with the driver partner.
“Layman like complainant cannot be denied his due by invoking intricacies of law. It is so because technicalities cannot come in the way of administration of justice to helpless consumers who stand exploited like complainant in this case,” the commission observed.
It said this act of the OP, for not providing proper services and forcing the complainant to indulge in unnecessary litigation, proved deficiency in their service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.
The company was thus directed to refund ₹27, charged in excess, to the complainant.
It was also directed to pay ₹8,000 to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him; and litigation cost. The court directed an additional ₹20,000 to be deposited in the consumer legal aid account head being maintained by the commission.