The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal and Justice Pinki has upheld the District Commission's ruling, which determined that Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.'s failure to ensure the timely arrival of an Uber taxi and its inability to address the issue constitutes a 'deficiency in service.' Uber has been directed to pay 24,100/- to the Complainants, covering expenses which they had to bear due to Uber’s mistake. Further, a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- has been ordered to be paid for mental agony and litigation charges.

The complainant had booked an Uber Taxi for Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-3 at 3.15 AM but the driver did not turn up and the Complainant hiring another way out but had to wait for the said booked Taxi to come.The complainant had made repeated efforts to reach out to Uber but didn't get any response and lastly gave up and cancelled the Uber ride and took a local taxi reached the airport at 5:15 AM, but due to the excessive delay, the Complainant and his wife had to miss their flight to Indore and considering they had to attend an important family function complainant had to book second flight to Indore in the evening at double price.The complainant had requested Uber to resolve the issue but after no response and aggrieved by the same, the complainant has sent legal notice 23/12/2021 to solve the issue but all in vain and consequently, filed a Consumer Complaint in the Delhi district Commission praying for appropriate compensation.

The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the Ex-Parte order on the observation that Uber has failed to furnish the required explanation of delay and the reason for non arrival occurred because of the reason beyond their control or any other sort of justification, thus Uber is liable to pay the compensation for delay. In the absence of evidence to explain the delay, there is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Uber and therefore ordered a refund of Rs. 24,100 to be paid by the Company to the Complainant for purchase of expensive tickets. The Company was also made liable to pay Rs. 30,000 towards mental agony and litigation costs.

Aggrieved by the order, Uber filed an appeal to State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, where primarily they submitted they were not given adequate opportunity to represent themselves owing to non receivance of summons and notice and put forth their key contention that it merely acts as an aggregator and facilitator, providing a common platform for independent driver-partners and riders to connect for transportation services. As such, Uber cannot be held liable for any actions or omissions by the driver partners, including cancellations, refusals, or delays in service and further contended in cases of cancellation or delay it facilitates alternate arrangement by connecting the rider to another driver-partner,but in this instance the Respondent did not opt for another driver and instead went in a local taxi,due to which the prolonged delay occurred.Thus,there being no scope of deficiency in service' in the present case.

The preliminary issue the State Commission observed was:

1)Whether the Appellant was given a fair opportunity to present its case before the District Commission?

The State Commission on perusal of documents on file and noted that the District Commission had properly served notices to the Company using appropriate methods. Therefore, the argument claiming non-receipt of notice and summons was dismissed, as the Company had been given ample opportunities to appear and furnish evidence.

2) Whether the District Commission erred in establishing deficiency on the part of Appellant?

The State Commission rejected the argument of the Appellant of them merely acting as an aggregator and, therefore, cannot be held liable for the actions or inactions of the driver partners. The State Commission observed that though the Company provides a platform for facilitation of transportation services, it assumes an obligation to ensure that the services offered through its platform are delivered as promised and in a timely manner.Moreover, it has also failed to furnish any evidence justifying the cause of the delay as well.

The bench also did not find any merit in the argument of the Appellant that the Respondent did not request another driver through the Uber platform. The bench deemed that Repondent’s action was entirely reasonable considering the urgency of the situation and had already waited for an extended period without receiving any communication or updates from either the driver or the Uber platform regarding the delay,

Thus, after due consideration it was held that there was a 'deficiency in service' by Uber India.

Ultimately, the State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Commission and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Uber India Systems Pvt. ltd. vs Upendra Singh FIRST APPEAL NO.- 637/2023

Advocate For Appellant (s): Mr. Kartik Arora

Advocate For Respondent (s): Mr. S.K Jha & S.K. Roy