Delhi State Consumer Commission orders Uber to refund the cost of a flight ticket and pay compensation to a customer because of a delay in the arrival of their cab.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission confirmed the District Consumer Commission’s ruling that Uber India must pay compensation for the delay in taxi arrival. The Commission stated that Uber’s failure to ensure timely driver arrival and provide a quick alternative worsened the service deficiency. They noted that as a transportation service provider, Uber has a duty to deliver services without unnecessary delays or issues. The Commission, led by President Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Justice Pinki, remarked, “Considering the urgency of the Respondent’s need to catch a flight, it was reasonable for him to look for other transportation options. The Appellant’s inability to provide a prompt and suitable alternative, despite being a service aggregator, highlights the service deficiency and lack of accountability in ensuring a smooth customer experience.”
Advocate Kritya Sinha represented Uber. The complainant, a doctor from New Delhi, booked an Uber taxi to Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-3, but the driver did not arrive, forcing him to wait. He chose Uber for its promised 24/7 service. After calling Uber again without a response, he took a local taxi but missed his Vistara flight. The complainant and his wife missed a close friend’s wedding due to the taxi delay. After sending a legal notice without resolution, the District Commission found Uber guilty of service deficiency and unfair trade practices.
The Commission accepted the complaint and ordered Uber to refund Rs. 24,100 for the purchase of additional air tickets due to the delay of the Uber taxi, along with Rs. 30,000 for mental distress and legal fees. Uber, unhappy with the decision made without its presence, appealed to the State Commission, claiming the District Commission made a mistake in finding a fault on its part. The Bench dismissed Uber’s argument that natural justice was violated, noting that Uber had many chances to appear before the District Commission but did not, leading to the ex-parte decision. The Bench pointed out that Uber’s failure to ensure the driver arrived on time caused the Respondent to miss their flight, resulting in major inconvenience and extra costs. Uber, despite being a transportation service provider, did not provide any proof to explain the delay of the booked taxi.
The Bench also rejected Uber’s argument that it should not be responsible for the actions of its independent driver-partners. It stated that Uber’s failure to fulfill this duty is a clear service deficiency, and Uber must be held responsible for the harm caused to the Respondent. Therefore, the Court confirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order 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
