DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.527 of 2019
Date of institution: 15.04.2019 Date of decision : 06.08.2019
Virender Singh son of Dharma Singh, resident of House No.2072, Sector 104, Pearls City, Near Taj Towers, SAS Nagar.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. HQ Gurgaon office Address 23rd Floor, One Horizon Center Golf Course Road, DLF City V, Sector 43, Haryana.
2. Uber Office, Plot No.88, Near Hotel Sky, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Jasjot Singh Sandhu, cl. for the complainant.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, a reputed businessman stood attached with Uber in 2015 on hope of having better future because big incentives were promised by OPs. Complainant purchased a brand new vehicle on loan for being part of OPs because they have big network all around India. Complainant’s ID stood blocked since from November, 2018 on ground that there was a complaint from customer. No investigation has been carried by OPs or by their staff and nor any clarification asked from complainant. Complainant has all the proofs to clarify his position, but staff of OP No.2 has not heard requests of complainant. OPs had been making false promises by claiming that earning of a person will depend on his work because there is no restriction from the side of OP Company. As agents of Uber disclosed complaisant that some drivers were earning Rs.90,000/- per month and that is why complainant became part of e-commerce platform after becoming a driver partner in Uber parlance in early 2015 and by working about 10 hours a day, complainant was able to manage his monthly installments of car loan. After paying EMI and cost of fuel and maintenance, complainant had been enjoying saving of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Crash came at the end of 2016 when OP Company reduced rate per kilometer charged from passengers from Rs.10/- to Rs.6/-. Complainant used to get incentive of Rs.2,000/- every day. Complainant has air conditioned Wagon R vehicle which costs Rs.90/- for 5 KMs because the same gives uncomfortable ride. OP Company cannot reduce size of their monthly car repayment because those who want to sell the car and get out of the debt, cannot do so because re-sale value would not be enough to repay the loan. Complainant has family to support and car is the only means of earning but due to negligence and lack of professionalism of OP No.2 its staff has blocked complainant’s ID for the last 3 months. Complainant requested OP No.2 many times to re-start the ID, but staff of local office continued to harass complainant. Despite service of legal notice dated 07.01.2019, nothing has been done and that is why complaint for seeking direction to OPs to pay compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs for causing loss.
2. Arguments heard for admission purposes.
3. Complainant himself in the complaint has claimed that he is a reputed businessman and got himself attached with Uber in 2015 for earning incentives and pay outs. It is also case of complainant that he purchased brand new car on loan for being part of OPs because they have big network spread all around India. By keeping in view these assertions contained in Para No.1 and 2 of complaint, there is no escape from the conclusion that complainant availed services of OPs by attaching his vehicle with the latter for carrying on business. Even if averments in the complaint may be there that this earning was for earning livelihood for the family, but when car after car is attached with Uber, then the same cannot be said to be attached for earning livelihood, but for earning huge profits. Being so, complainant certainly is not consumer within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. As per law laid down in Jagrut Nagrik & Anr. vs Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. III (2015) CPJ 1 (NC), if the truck chassis were purchased by complainant for expanding existing transport business, then the complainant concerned will not be a consumer because expansion of business is not for purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment, but for earning profit. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such keeping in view the fact that complainant got himself attached with Uber for earning profit, complainant certainly is not a consumer.
5. Grievance of the complainant further is that his ID blocked without conduct of investigation in respect of complaint received from customer. If that be the position, then grievance projected through para No.4 of the complaint is regarding dispute of employer and employee. Such dispute is not a consumer dispute. Moreover, copy of contract agreement arrived at by complainant with OPs not produced and as such virtually complainant seeks redressal of grievance by suppressing material facts regarding terms and conditions of his employment/attachment with OPs. Whether investigation in the complaint received from customer is essential, that can be ascertained from the terms and conditions of the agreement. Copy of that contract agreement not produced and as such in view of suppression of material facts also this complaint is not maintainable, but complainant may avail remedy by approaching appropriate Court/ Forum having jurisdiction in the matter.
6. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed with the observation that complainant will be at liberty to approach appropriate Court/Forum. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
August 06, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
