Consumer court imposes penalty on Uber after driver refuses to complete trip

The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently upheld a penalty of ₹15,000 imposed on Uber India for mental agony and harassment after an Uber driver forced a passenger to vacate without completing the trip. [Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd v Mohit Bansal and Anr.].A coram of Presiding Member HPS Mahal and member Kiran Sibal noted that in an employer-employee relationship, the employer is liable for third-party acts. ."It is established that the Uber App is managed and controlled by the appellant/OP No.2 and also all transactions and services provided via said App is managed by the appellant. It is a settled principle of law that in an employer-employee relationship, the employer is liable for the acts of the third party and is also responsible to provide the social security benefits," the order dated June 4 stated..The case originated from a complaint filed by a consumer who had booked an Uber-X cab from Zirakpur to Kalka on March 7, 2017. The customer alleged that the driver misbehaved and forced him to vacate the cab after traveling a short distance. The driver also demanded a fare of ₹105 for the incomplete trip. The complainant further stated that despite Uber's claim of refunding the fare, no such refund was received. This led to the filing of a complaint with the Mohali District Commission..The District Commission, after considering the evidence and submissions, directed Uber to pay a compensation of ₹15,000 for mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs..Aggrieved, Uber moved the State Commission. It argued that the District Commission passed the order without giving Uber a fair opportunity to be heard, especially given COVID-19 constraints at the time of the hearing.Uber further contended that it merely provides a technological platform connecting drivers and passengers and should not be held liable for the driver's actions. It also emphasized that the driver was an independent contractor and not an employee of Uber..The Commission noted that Uber was given ample opportunities to present its case before the District Commission but failed to do so. It further found that Uber's control over the booking and payment processes indicated an active intermediary role, which under the Consumer Protection Act, could not absolve it of liability for deficiencies in service.Accordingly, the State Commission dismissed Uber's appeal and upheld the order of the District Commission..Uber India was represented by advocate SS Joshan..[Read Order]