DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2018

        Date of institution:  11.01.2018               Date of decision   :  13.08.2019

 

Raman Kumar Soni son of Shri R.P. Soni, # 1326, Phase 3B2, Mohali 160059.

 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Uber Head Office, REGUS Business Platinum Centre Pvt. Ltd., Level 3, Navi Mumbai -400705.

 

2. Uber Chandigarh Office, Plot No.88, Near Hotel Sky, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh-160029.

 

              ……..Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of 

the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

 

Present: Complainant in person.

OPs Ex-parte.

 

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

 

 

Order

 

                Complainant booked advance taxi from Uber on 02.01.2018 at 9.00 P.M. for going to Mohali Railway Station on 03.01.2018 at 6.00 A.M. because he was to board a train bound from Mohali to Amritsar at 7.10 A.M. Uber confirmed the ride with fare range of Rs.94/- to Rs.117/- for that trip. Complainant confirmed the booking and accordingly received message that taxi will be arriving on 03.01.2018 between 6.00 to 6.15 A.M. However, on 03.01.2018 complainant received message at 5.55 A.M. to the effect that fares are higher due to increased demand and as such complainant can cancel booking in next 5 minutes without a fee. Complainant was also called upon to be ready within 5 minutes of arrival. However, complainant was having no other means available on 03.01.2018 at 6.00 A.M. and as such he decided to have ride in the taxi got booked by him.  When the driver reached, he did not inform about increase of charges. However, complainant was called upon to pay Rs.177/- on reaching at Mohali Railway Station. Complainant resisted to pay that amount by showing message of charges in range of Rs.94/- to Rs.117/-. That driver started talking with complainant in unparliamentarily language and insisted for payment of Rs.177/-. As complainant was with his family and as such he paid Rs.180/- but balance of Rs.3/- even not returned. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs and by claiming that OPs charged excess fare, this complaint filed for seeking compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. It is also claimed that OPs liable to refund excess charged amount of Rs.60/-.

2. In reply filed by OPs, it is claimed that Uber B.V. is a company incorporated in Netherlands and it provides Uber App, which is a lead generation mobile application meant for connecting independent providers of transportation services with third party riders like complainant, looking for transportation. It is claimed that Uber Taxi is not an entity incorporated under Indian Laws. Uber B.V. promotes use of Uber App with local market related information, facilitating payments between riders and customers. Uber India does not have contractual relationship with driver partners using Uber App and even it does not employ or control  users of Uber App. Uber B.V.  Uber B.V which is the licensed operator of Uber App within territory of India has not been impleaded as a party and as such complaint deserves to be dismissed on ground of non joinder of parties. 

Complainant also is aware about existence of this necessary party, but he deliberately has not joined Uber B.V. as a party. Claims made by complainant pertain to fare charges on a trip taken through Uber App, all of which are done through Uber App. No claim raised against OPs because it is not service provider and even is not an entity registered under Indian Laws. Service of transportation under Section 2 (o) of Consumer Protection Act is provided by driver partner to the passengers and, therefore, claims of complainant, if any, arose against the driver partner only.  There is no deficiency in service as alleged by complainant. At the time of booking, the fact of surge was communicated to the complainant as is admitted by him in the complaint. Inspite of that communication, complainant chose to use services provided by Uber App. Though the actual fare was approximately Rs.93.60 N.P., but the hike in fares due to high demand was 1.9X and accordingly complainant was showed total fare of Rs.177.84 N.P. Immediately after the trip, complainant filed complaint with Uber App stating that he expected to make payment of Rs.117/-, but had to pay Rs.177/-. Same fact is also mentioned in the complaint. However, complainant failed to highlight that immediately after lodging complaint with Uber B.V.,  an amount of Rs.84.24 N.P. has been refunded on account of extra amount charged for the higher price. In this way complainant paid only an amount of Rs.93.60 N.P. which was the actual amount that the complainant had to pay. Same was done on 03.01.2018 at 10.30 A.M. in the morning.  This complaint has been filed despite immediate refund of extra paid amount. In case complainant wants to file a formal complaint against driver partner, then Uber B.V. is committed to comply with all procedural requirements and share information as and when required. Uber B.V. is a company which relies on modern technology to connect riders and drivers through Uber App. Uber B.V. is not a service provider, but just a market place which aims to bring riders in contact with driver partners. 

3. As none appeared for any of the parties on 19.12.2018 and as such complaint was dismissed in default, but that order was set aside by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide orders dated 28.02.2019 passed in Revision Petition No.11 of 2019 and that is why notice to OPs was ordered to be issued afresh. Despite issue of that notice, none appeared for OPs and as such OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 27.05.2019.

4. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and thereafter closed evidence. 

5. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

6. From the above referred pleadings of parties, it is made out that OPs themselves acknowledged qua refunding of extra charged amount of Rs.84.24 N.P. and as such that in a long way goes to show as if extra charged amount than the contracted amount was charged from complainant. As advance booking was done by complainant on 02.01.2018 because he was to board a train from Mohali Railway Station at 7.10 A.M. on 03.01.2018 and as such certainly complainant was bound to be perplexed, when on reaching at Railway Station, he had to pay Rs.177/- under compelling circumstances. If complainant would have kept on resisting the driver in charging extra fare of Rs.177/- against the confirmed price range fare of Rs.94-117, then certainly complainant alongwith his family would not have been in a position to board the train at Mohali Railway Station. It is the case of complainant that no advance intimation was received by him regarding charging of enhanced fare of Rs.177/- against the confirmed fare of Rs.94-117 and as such certainly complainant was taken by surprise just before start from home to Railway Station Mohali regarding excess amount required to be paid by him. As and when a person makes out a plan for journey, then he is only bound to focus on the pleasant events of journey, but in case some ill event during transit or immediately before that takes place, then he is bound to go under lot of stress, which  happened in this case, when complainant had to cough out extra fare of Rs.84.24 N.P. Practice of charging excess fare than that of actual contracted fare at the time of advance booking, is unfair trade practice, which needs be deprecated and as such complainant entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to litigation expenses. In order to keep check on such unruly service providers, who commits breach of assurances, promises and commitments at the nick of time, they are required to be dealt with heavy hands and as such OPs must be made to deposit atleast Rs.20,000/- as compensation in Consumer Welfare Fund of this Forum, in addition to the amounts payable to complainant as compensation and litigation expenses. 

7. Complainant held conversation with OPs, as disclosed by Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 for claiming that he was disclosed as if he has to pay taxi fare in the range of Rs.96 to 117, but driver charged Rs.177/-. Through Ex.C-2 protest against this exploitation was raised. Through Ex.C-1 complainant claimed that he was expected to pay Rs.117/- as fare, but had to pay Rs.177/- and  receipt of that trip details produced as Ex.C-3. Through Ex.C-3 it is sought to be proved as if Rs.84.24 N.P. charged as extra fare and the same fact has been admitted by OPs through their written statement by claiming that refund of same has been done. However, complainant claimed that he has not got this amount of Rs.84.24 N.P. credited in his account as he has not availed Uber services after this incident of 03.01.2018. That dispute need not be gone in detail because this minor amount can be included in the amount of compensation payable for mental agony and harassment amount. 

8. Ex.C-4 shows as if fare payable is Rs.93.60 N.P. and same also shows distance to be travelled.  However, through SMS Ex.C-5 it was conveyed as if fares are higher due to increased demand and as such complainant can cancel the booking within 5 minutes without a fee. This SMS Ex.C-5 is of date 03.01.2018 and flashed at 5.55 A.M. and as such same shows as if this SMS flashed at the nick of time by leaving the complainant in confusion and lurch. Flashing of this message Ex.C-5 at the nick of time itself is an act of exploitation of consumer because when a consumer had been asked one day in advance to pay fare in the range of Rs.94-117 for the trip to be undertaken by him on the next day in early morning hours, then he will not at all expect payment of about twofold of minimum payable charges amount disclosed in advance. Even through Ex.C-6 fare has been shown as Rs.93.60 N.P. for trip through Maruti Suzuki Alto and as such act of charging excess amount than the disclosed one at the time of advance booking virtually is an act of exploitation by OPs. 

9. Even in the written statement plea has been specifically taken that Uber B.V. is necessary party, but address of same not disclosed anywhere in the written reply and as such virtually that plea has been taken just for denying complainant of his due. Even if assumed for arguments sake that Uber B.V. is a Company incorporated in Netherlands, but operation of same for providing transportation services to the consumers is in India and as such Indian Laws to apply. Complainant or anybody else (layman) does not know intricacies of contract between Uber and its drivers. Rather as and when one avails online services through the known or branded concern, then he expects to have contract with this branded concern and not with the hidden partner of the branded concern. Being so, OPs cannot escape from liability under the garb of hidden contract between them with the driver partner. If at all complainant was aware about the contract between branded concern like OPs with its driver partner, then complainant definitely would have impleaded the driver as party or he would not have availed the service from Uber, but from the concerned driver directly.  Keeping in view all this, ordinary layman like complainant cannot be denied his due by invoking intricacies of law. It is so because technicalities cannot come in the way of administration of justice to hapless consumers, who stand exploited like complainant in this case.

10. As a sequel of above discussion, , complaint allowed in terms that OPs will pay Rs. 7,000/- (including excess charged amount) as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-  to the complainant within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order . Besides above referred amounts, OPs also directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- as compensation in Consumer Welfare Fund maintained by this Forum. Deposit of this amount of  Rs. 20,000/- be made within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of this order  Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

August 13, 2019.

  (G.K. Dhir)

President

 

 

 

 

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member