Uber asked to pay ₹54,000 to Delhi resident for failing to provide cab on time

Uber's delayed service meant that the couple missed their flight to Indore and spent less than 12 hours with their family.

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a district commission ruling that ordered cab service aggregator Uber to compensate a complainant for not providing a cab on time and its failure to address the issue by merely classifying it as a “deficiency in service”.

Uber did not respond to complaints or legal notice. (File image)(AP)

In October 2023, the district commission asked the company to pay ₹24,100 as compensation to the complainant and ₹30,000 as extra penalties for causing mental distress and legal costs, The Times of India reported.

Poor service

The incident took place on November 2022 when the complainant, Upendra Singh, missed his flight to Indore due to Uber's failure to provide a cab on time. Upendra Singh booked a cab at 3.15am to reach the Delhi airport, but neither the cab arrived nor the company responded to his numerous calls, the report added.

The delay forced Upendra Singh and his wife to hire a local taxi and reach the airport at 5:15am, which caused them to miss their Indore-bound flight. As their return tickets to Delhi were pre-booked, the couple could spend less than 12 hours with their family in Indore.

Singh further pursued the issue with Uber, but the company never responded to his calls. His legal notice to the company on Nov 23, 2021, was also met with a similar response. Frustrated with the company's attitude, Singh filed a complaint with the Delhi District Commission.

The State Commission bench upheld the order of the Delhi District Commission and noted that Uber neither provided evidence nor adequate justification for failure to ensure timely service.

“As a service provider facilitating the transportation process, the appellant (Uber) has an obligation to ensure services are provided without undue delay or inconvenience. Its inability to deliver on this responsibility constitutes a clear deficiency in service, and the appellant must be held accountable for the resultant harm caused to the complainant,” the report quoted from the bench's November 11 order.