NGO opposes in HC Ola, Uber's pleas to quash summons

An NGO claimed in the Delhi High Court on Monday that the pleas filed by app-based cab firms Ola and Uber, seeking quashing of summons for allegedly operating taxis without licence and charging excess fare from passengers, was based on "false and frivolous" statements.

The NGO, on whose complaint a trial court had summoned the cab service providers as accused, contended before the high court that the firms' pleas were liable to be dismissed as the magistrate had passed a reasonable and a factually correct order.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva listed the matter for consideration on September 20.

The high court also said its interim order staying the proceedings in the criminal complaint lodged before the trial court against the two service providers shall continue till further orders.

It had stayed the trial court proceedings on March 12 and May 2 for Ola and Uber respectively.

NGO Nyayabhoomi, through its secretary Rakesh Agarwal, had filed the complaint against ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd, which runs Ola, Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd and Serendipity Infolabs Pvt Ltd, which runs Taxi For Sure, alleging violations under various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The trial court had on July 31 last year summoned the firms and directed their authorised representatives to appear before it.

Both the companies, in their pleas before the high court, have contended that the complaint against them was at the behest of a competitor, Magic Sewa.

They have also contended that they were not an agent or canvasser as contended in the complaint against them.

In its response filed through advocate Sumit Kumar, the NGO claimed that the quashing petition a collection of false and frivolous statements and untenable contentions.

It said the firms sought quashing of the trial court's order without giving any relevant and cogent ground and the pleas be dismissed.

In its complaint, the NGO had sought recovery of Rs 91,000 crore from the two app-based taxi service providers for allegedly overcharging passengers.

The firms have said in their quashing petitions they were "service providers on an electronic platform facilitating booking of radio cabs/e-cabs, in respect of which there were no provisions framed under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act".

They had also told the high court that a bill has been introduced in Parliament seeking to regulate the services being provided by them.

While summoning them, the trial court had said a prima facie case of permit violation was made out against the firms for allegedly charging excess fares which is in violation of the provisions of the MV Act.

The high court in August 2016 had directed that after August 22, 2016, taxi aggregators or operators shall not charge fare more than the cap stipulated in the Delhi government's June 2013 notification.

The trial court in its order had noted that excess fares have been charged by the companies in violation of the MV Act, June 20, 2013 notification as well as city taxi service scheme.