Charged Rs 1,334 for 8.8km, consumer court asks Uber to pay Rs 10k to customer
The Commission on perusing the documents on record found that the original fare has been shown as Rs 358.57 for the distance of 4.89 miles which took duration of 16.38 minutes.
4 min read
On one hand Uber India are alleging that the route was changed time and again by the driver due to certain obstacles on the roads. (Representative Photo/File)THE DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has penalised Uber India of Rs 20000. Of the total amount Rs 10,000 should be paid to a Chandigarh resident for overcharging, and Rs 10,000 should be deposited in Legal aid account, the forum further said. Ashwani Prashar of Chandigarh stated that he paid Uber Rs 1,334 for 8.83 km and this comes to be Rs 150 per km. Prashar further alleged that the even the duration of the ride was just 15 from 10.40 pm to 10.57 pm on August 6, 2021. The complainant said that he had sent various customer chats and emails through Uber App and Gmail on next day regarding his grievance but all efforts went into vain.
Uber India contested the consumer complaint, in reply submitted that the upfront fare shown to the rider was Rs 359, however, the final trip fare was Rs 1334 due to multiple route deviations during the course of the journey from AG Colony, Audit Phool Colony, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh to Sector 48-B, Chandigarh. The firm further stated that the Uber India is not able to determine if the said deviations were rider/ complainant or driver induced. Further, in either case, deviation in route due to rider/complainant or the driver, they cannot be held liable as it acts merely as an intermediary between the rider and the driver and is not party to any agreement between them regarding
the route taken for the journey. It is also stated that Uber India, solely as a goodwill gesture and to maintain users faith in reliability of the platform, have refunded Uber Credits worth Rs 975 to the complainant’s uber account as it was a cash trip.
The Commission on perusing the documents on record found that the original fare has been shown as Rs 358.57 for the distance of 4.89 miles which took duration of 16.38 minutes. “But in the present case the complainant paid an amount of Rs 1334 to the driver as the same is shown on the App of the Uber India.”
On one hand Uber India are alleging that the route was changed time and again by the driver due to certain obstacles on the roads. On the other hand,the Uber India have refunded an amount of Rs 975 to the complainant.
Similarly, Uber India are shouldering the whole burden of the deficiency in service in the present case upon the shoulder of driver of the cab but apparently, as per record, the complainant was bound to pay to the driver as per the direction of Uber only, said the Commission.
The Commission opined that, “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 is entitled for compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to litigation expenses. In order to keep check on such unruly service providers, who commit 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 at least Rs 10,000 as compensation in Consumer Welfare Fund of this Forum, in addition to the amounts payable to complainant as compensation and litigation expenses.”
The Commission said that 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 service provider. Being so, OPs (Uber India) escape from liability under the garb of hidden contract between them with the driver partner.
The Commission thus held that the act of Uber India on non providing proper services and forcing the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.
You May Like
Photos
