Consumer protection: Aggregator liable for driver's failure to turn up

The State Commission held that though Uber functions as a cab aggregator, it should ensure timely and reliable delivery of services offered through its platform

Upendra Singh, a prominent doctor residing in New Delhi, had booked air tickets for himself and his wife, Preeti, to travel on Vistara Flight No. UK 913 from Delhi to Indore to attend the wedding function of a close friend. To ensure timely arrival at the airport, they scheduled an Uber cab for November 19, 2022, at 3.15 a.m. to transport them to Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal 3. 

Although Uber allotted a cab, the assigned driver, Daleep Yadav, failed to turn up. Singh’s attempts to contact the driver or reach customer care were unsuccessful, as there was no response to his calls. Ultimately, Singh was forced to hire a local taxi, which dropped the couple at the airport at 5:15 a.m. Due to the delay, they missed their scheduled flight and had to book another one departing later in the evening at double the cost. They missed several ceremonies due to the total delay of nearly 12 hours. 

Following the incident, the Singhs sent a legal notice to Uber requesting a resolution of the issue. However, the company failed to respond. Consequently, they filed a complaint before the Delhi District Consumer Commission. Uber neither appeared 

in the proceedings nor submitted a reply to contest the case. The matter was decided ex parte, and Uber was held liable to pay ₹24,100 towards the cost of fresh air tickets for the evening flight. In addition, the company was directed to pay ₹30,000 as lump sum compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. The Commission allowed 45 days for compliance with the order, after which any delay would attract interest at 6 per cent. 

Uber challenged the order before the Delhi State Commission, arguing that it had not received notice of the proceedings at its registered or corporate offices. The company contended that the order was not proper, arguing it merely functioned as a cab aggregator providing a platform to connect independent drivers with passengers. It argued that it could not be held responsible for cancellations, refusals, or delays caused by a driver. Uber further submitted that Singh contributed to the delay by searching for a local taxi during odd hours instead of requesting another cab through the Uber App. 

The State Commission, however, found that the notice had been duly delivered via both registered and speed post, as supported by an affidavit of service. It observed that although Uber may operate as a cab aggregator, it has an obligation to ensure that services facilitated through its platform are delivered as promised and on time. The Commission noted that despite the couple waiting for a considerable duration, there was no communication from either the company or the driver, so the Singhs could not be faulted for not making another booking through the app under such circumstances. The Commission castigated Uber for its failure to provide a timely and reliable alternative, which undermined the promise of a seamless customer experience. 

The Commission concluded that Uber’s failure to ensure the driver’s punctual arrival resulted in the missed flight and additional expenses incurred by the Singhs. It upheld the earlier finding that Uber was guilty of deficiency in service and dismissed the appeal. 

The writer is a consumer activist