Delhi State Consumer Commission Directs Uber To Refund Flight Ticket Fare And Pay Compensation To Customer Due To Delay In Arrival Of Cab
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the decision of the District Consumer Commission holding Uber India liable to pay compensation for delay in arrival of taxi and ruled that the Company’s failure to ensure punctual arrival of driver and offer timely alternative exacerbates deficiency in service.
The State Commission observed that as a service provider facilitating the transportation process, the Appellant-Company has an obligation to ensure that services are provided without undue delay or inconvenience.
The Coram of State Commission President Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Justice Pinki held, “Given the urgency of the Respondent’s situation — namely, the need to catch a flight — it was entirely reasonable for the Respondent to seek alternative means of transportation. The Appellant’s failure to offer a timely and viable alternative, despite its role as an aggregator and facilitator of services, further exacerbates the deficiency in service and underscores the lack of responsibility taken by the Appellant in ensuring a seamless customer experience.”
Advocate Kritya Sinha represented the Appellant Company.
The complainant, a doctor residing in New Delhi, booked an Uber Taxi for Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-3 but the Driver did not turn up and the complainant had to wait for the said booked Taxi to come. It was his case that he booked the branded Uber Taxi only with assurance that 24x7 services will be available. He called Uber again, but no one responded. The complainant hired a local Taxi but he could not catch the booked Vistara Flight. The complainant and his wife had to attend the marriage ceremony of a close friend and due to delay in Taxi’s arrival, the complainant missed the function. The complainant sent a legal notice to solve the issue but all in vain. The District Commission held that there was a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of Uber.
The Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Uber to refund Rs.24,100 for purchasing second air tickets due to delay of Uber Taxi along with Rs 30,000 lump sum for mental agony and litigation charges. The Appellant-Uber, aggrieved by the ex-parte order filed the appeal before the State Commission asserting that the District Commission erred in finding a deficiency on the part of the Appellant.
The Bench junked the Appellant’s contention that principles of natural justice were violated as the Appellant, despite being provided with ample opportunity to appear before the District Commission, failed to do so and was consequently proceeded with ex-parte.
The Bench observed that the Appellant’s failure to ensure the punctual arrival of the driver at the scheduled time directly resulted in the Respondent missing his flight, causing not only significant inconvenience but also additional expenses. The Appellant, despite its position as a facilitator of transportation services, did not present any evidence to explain or justify the delay caused by the non-arrival of the booked Uber taxi.
The Bench also rejected the Appellant's claim that it cannot be held liable for the actions of independent driver-partners is untenable. “The Appellant’s 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 Respondent”, it held.
Thus, the Court upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Uber India Systems Private Ltd. v. Mr. Upendra Singh [FA. NO./637/2023]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Kritya Sinha and Kushagra Kaul
