Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/899/2017

Sh. Krishan M. Vohra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uber - Opp.Party(s)

Satyajeet Singh Adv.

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	899 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	24.11.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	22.02.2018

 

 

 

 

Sh.Krishan M. Vohra son of Sh.Devi Dayal Vohra, resident of H.No.671, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana.       

             …..Complainant

Versus

Uber, Plot NO.88, Near Hotel Sky, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh 160029

                          ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Satyajeet Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

 Opposite Party exparte.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The complainant has stated that on 18.11.2017 at around 9:30 PM, he booked a Car with option of ‘pool service’ from Uber Cabs/Opposite Party for travel from Panchkula to Sector 49, Chandigarh. The Opposite Party accordingly confirmed Uber Cab bearing Regd. No.PB-01B-3254 driven by Gurmeet.  The complainant has stated that he waited for the booked Cab, but the driver of the Cab failed to pick him up and when contacted on phone, he expressed his inability to provide him the service and also abused him on phone.

2]       The notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Party, but despite service, the Opposite Party did not appear, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 4.1.2018.

 

3]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and also perused the entire record.

 

4]       After thoughtful consideration of the contentions raised by the complainant in this matter, it is observed that the complainant has not paid any advance for the Cab service.  Just by placing a requisition for Car service on Online, does not culminate into any contract between the complainant and Opposite Party.  In this matter no financial loss has been explicitly caused to the complainant nor has he proved so by leading any substantial evidence to that effect. The complainant could have filed a complaint with the Police about any misdemeanor or abuse, if any, as alleged to have been committed by said Cab driver Gurmeet. The Civil Police only has power to investigate into such matters and on proof of guilt, to brought the culprit to book.

 

5]       The complainant has failed to substantiate the allegation of abuse by the Car driver.  The solitary statement of the complainant without any corroborative evidence is not suffice enough for this Forum to held the Car Driver guilty and penalize the Opposite Party/Uber. The complainant has also not impleaded Gurmeet, the Car driver as Opposite Party.  The Ann.C-1 relied upon by the complainant in proof of requisition of Cab, ipso facto do not substantiate the claim of the complainant regarding booking of Uber Cab PB01B-3254, as alleged in the complaint.

 

6]       Keeping into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, the present complaint for any compensation before this Forum is not tenable and without merits, hence dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22^nd February, 2018                                                     

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER