SCDRC Fines Uber After Driver Refuses To Take Passenger To Destination

SCDRC Fines Uber After Driver Refuses To Take Passenger To Destination

Upholds the order of the District Commission

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a penalty of Rs.15,000 imposed on Uber India. The fine was for the mental agony and harassment caused to a passenger who was forced to leave the vehicle by the driver without completing the trip.

In the Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Mohit Bansal and Anr case, a Coram of HPS Mahal (Presiding Member) and Kiran Sibal (Member) held, "The Uber app is managed and controlled by the appellant/OP No.2 and all transactions and services provided via the app are managed by the appellant. In an employer-employee relationship, the employer is liable for the acts of the third party. It is also responsible for providing social security benefits.”

The matter arose on a complaint filed by a consumer, who booked an Uber-X cab from Zirakpur to Kalka on 07 March 2017.

The passenger alleged that the driver misbehaved and forced him to vacate the cab after traveling a short distance. The driver also demanded a fare of Rs.105 for the incomplete trip.

The complainant stated that despite Uber's claim of refunding the fare, no refund was received. This led him to approach the Mohali District Commission.

The District Commission directed Uber to compensate the complainant by paying Rs.15,000 for the mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs.

Aggrieved by the order, Uber moved the State Commission. It argued that the District Commission passed the order without giving Uber a fair opportunity to be heard, especially due to constraints of hearing during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Uber added that it only provides a technological platform connecting the drivers and passengers. Therefore, it should not be held liable for the driver's actions. It emphasized that the driver was an independent contractor and not an Uber employee.

The State Commission noted that Uber was given opportunities to present its case before the District Commission, but it failed to do so. It observed that Uber's control over the booking and payment process indicated an active intermediary role.

Thus, while dismissing Uber’s appeal and upholding the order of the District Commission, the SCDRC stated that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Uber could not be absolved for deficiency in service, and hence must pay the penalty.