Case- Kavita s. Sharma v/s UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT LTD
Consumer case no. 61/2021
Before – Hon’ble president in-charge Shri R.P Nagre
Hon’ble Member SMT G.M Kapse
Hon’ble Member SMT S.R Petkar
This complaint U/S 35(1)(a) of the consumer protection Act 2019 is filed by complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party(UBER)
The complaint of complaint is as under –
The complaint is advocate by profession. On 12/06/2018 the complainant had a flight from Mumbai to Chennai to attend very crucial meeting departure at 5.50 pm from Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport Mumbai. the complainant booked an Uber cab from her residence, at around 3.29 p.m. After consider of traffic it will take 1 hours to reach Airport from residence of complainant as distance is around 36 km.
The complainant during the traveling from home to airport, she faced following difficulties :-
- The driver did not appear despite lapsation of considerable time and after repeated call to the driver the driver came after 14 minutes.
- After coming also the driver was busy on talking over his phone and he did not pay heed to the complainant request to start the cab and proceed.
- The driver took a wrong turn contrary to the direction given by the mobile reason for refill the petrol in the car which wasted 15-20 min
- Also the billing fare was 702.54 which was too high as compared to the estimated fair shown at the time of booking 563 which was charged due to diversion and long root taken by the driver.
- Only because of the drivers sheer and deliberate negligence and unprofessional conduct the complainant missed her flight.
The driver dropped the complainant at airport at 5:23 pm. And the complainant missed her flight for which the complainant had to take a next available flight on her own cost and expenses when there were no any fault from the side of complainant.
The complainant filed a complainant to direct the opposite party (uber) to pay Rs. 2,539 to the complainant towards the second flight charges and Rs. 2,00,000 towards the mental agony, torture and physical harassment.
The issue for consideration before the bench was:
Whether there is deficiency in service by the Uber (opposite party)?
The opposite party taken first defense that he provides only technology which help to arranged schedule transportation services. And actual transportation services is provided by driver partners who is independent third party contractor who are not employed by Uber or any of its affiliates. Therefore opposite party cannot give guarantee of third party.
The complainant filled his argument with reference to case decided by UK Supreme Cout, Uber BV V/S Aslam(2021) and Doe V/S Uber Technologies (2016) that Uber driver are the employee of Uber as Uber has superior control over the driver and Uber app.
The Court stated that the opposite party is responsible for defective service given to the complainant but the opposite party had accepted his fault and trying to resolve the grievance by adjusting extra fare of rupees Rs. 139 which was paid by the complainant for longer route. Which is not justified for mental agony faced by the complainant.
Thus the court directed the opposite party to pay compensation for mental agony of rs 10000 and also directed to pay litigation costs of rs 10,000 to the complainant.
