Mumbai Consumer Forum Sues Uber For Driver’s Negligence Causing Passenger To Miss Flight | So Good News

The meeting said that the plaintiff is a consumer of Uber under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the driver was only an agent appointed by the cab collector.

“it has been confirmed that a third party contractor (driver) is selected and managed by another party (Uber) to provide services to the plaintiff… Therefore, we found that, the plaintiff is a buyer of other parties and other parties are given a choice. the driver as an assistant… and received attention from the appellant,“Three members President RP Nagre, members GM Kapse and SA Petkar said.

Accordingly, the forum awarded Rs. 10,000 compensation and Rs. 10,000 for the cost of the claim.

The complainant Kavita Sharma, advocate of Dombivali said that she had booked an Uber at 3.29pm on June 12, 2018 for a flight from Mumbai to Chennai as she had an important meeting to attend. In his complaint Sharma cited various ways in which the driver delayed the 36 km ride. He reached his home 14 minutes late, the driver failed to board on time and also took a long way to fill CNG, he submitted. The lawyer missed his flight and was forced to board the next flight with his own money.

He went to a consumer forum in Thane after Uber refunded the amount, which is Rs 563 against the actual cost of Rs. 703 which he was obliged to pay.

In its response to the forum, Uber said it was just a cab aggregator offering a smartphone app that was used to connect drivers to their users. In addition, all drivers work as independent contractors and therefore Uber is not responsible for the driver’s failure. Also, drivers are not used by them.

In its order, the court noted that Uber’s operations and ownership determine its ability to operate and provide assistance in transportation arrangements. It also provides assistance to drivers and has the right to develop additional features, the conference said.

The court specifically recognized point 4 of the clauses that, after providing the service Uber helps to pay and “The right is reserved to increase the shipping costs charged at different locations…“

The meeting noted that the cab aggregator had already admitted that there was a shortage and was “tried to redress the grievance by changing the additional cost of Rs. 139 which was paid by the appellant on the long route.” However, this was not “justified” considering the “pains” that the lawyer had to face.

“From the information stated above about the performance of third parties, it is clear that the Uber app is controlled and managed by a third party and all services provided through the Uber app are managed by a third party. The appellant worked for third parties using the app and for the appellant’s Transport Services He was paid by a third party as per the Uber app and not the driver who was appointed by Uber India to provide service to the appellant.”