The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has fined Uber India Rs 28,000 after its driver overcharged Rs 27 from a customer for a ride in Chandigarh.
The Commission directed Uber India to refund Rs 27 to complainant Ritvik Garg, which was charged in the excess from him, along with Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 3,000 as the cost of litigation.
As per the terms and conditions, Uber India only provides technology services that help to arrange and schedule transportation services while the actual service is provided by Driver Partners,” Uber India said.
“Thus, we are of the opinion that when a customer pays money to the driver, some amount of money definitely goes to Uber India.
Uber India simply cannot absolve its liability by shouldering the same upon the driver,” the Commission said.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has fined Uber India Rs 28,000 after its driver overcharged Rs 27 from a customer for a ride in Chandigarh.
The Commission directed Uber India to refund Rs 27 to complainant Ritvik Garg, which was charged in the excess from him, along with Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 3,000 as the cost of litigation.
The Commission opined that “in order to keep a check on such unruly service providers, who commit breach of assurances, promises and commitments at the nick of time, they are required to be dealt with heavy hands and as such opposite parties (Uber India) must be made to deposit at least Rs 20,000 as compensation in the consumer legal aid account of this Commission, in addition to the amounts payable to complainant as compensation and litigation expenses”.
Advertisement
Ritvik Garg, a resident of Mandi Gobindgarh in Punjab, stated that on September 19, 2022, he booked a moto connect ride through an Uber application with Uber India cab services, from Sector 21A, Chandigarh, to Modern Housing Complex, Sector 13, Chandigarh.
Garg said the ride was allotted to driver Kailash, and the fare at the time of booking for the particular ride was shown around Rs 53. Garg, however, alleged that the driver had charged him Rs 80 following his own rules and regulations. Garg said that he raised the issue with Uber India on September 22, 2022 by sending a legal notice and then by mails but his grievance was not redressed.
Uber India in reply said it is a technology services provider that merely provides software on smartphones [Uber-app] that acts as a common platform for the Driver Partners and Riders/Users like the complainant to interact directly with each other for the purpose of availing and providing transportation or taxi services.
“Uber does not provide transportation services or functions as a transportation carrier, nor does it operate as an agent for the transportation of passengers. The transactions between the complainant and Uber India are governed by the terms and conditions agreed by them at the time of availing the service. As per the terms and conditions, Uber India only provides technology services that help to arrange and schedule transportation services while the actual service is provided by Driver Partners,” Uber India said.
Advertisement
The Commission on hearing the matter said after going through the record, it is abundantly clear that it is in the notice of Uber India that the complainant was overcharged Rs 27 but no investigation report was placed on record by Uber India to take action against the concerned driver. “Thus, we are of the opinion that when a customer pays money to the driver, some amount of money definitely goes to Uber India. Uber India simply cannot absolve its liability by shouldering the same upon the driver,” the Commission said.
The Commission opined that it was incumbent upon Uber India before taking services of the driver of such type of vehicle to know his behaviour is normal and not aggressive and Uber India must provide some training or frame some rules for such drivers.
The Commission further said the complainant or anybody else (layman) does not know the intricacies of the contract between Uber and its drivers. Rather as and when one avails online services through the known or branded concern, then he expects to have a contract with this branded concern and not with the hidden partner of the branded service provider, the Commission added.
