Overcharging After Displaying Lesser Amount At Time Of Booking, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Uber Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts:

The Complainant made a payment of ₹ 1334/- to Uber for availing services covering a distance of 8.83 kilometres, equating to ₹ 150/- per kilometre. The Complainant contended that the trip was overcharged, given that the cab driver collected the full amount of ₹ 1334/- for a journey lasting only 15 minutes, from 10.40 pm to 10.57 pm. Despite multiple attempts through customer chats and emails sent via Uber App and Gmail, to address the grievance, the Complainant received no resolution. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Uber.

In response, Uber contested the consumer complaint and argued that the upfront fare displayed to the rider was ₹ 359/-. However, the final trip fare amounted to ₹ 1334/- due to various route deviations during the journey from AG Colony, Audit Phool Colony, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh, to Sector 48-B, Chandigarh. It argued that it was unable to determine whether these deviations were initiated by the rider/Complainant or the driver. Regardless of the party responsible for the route changes, it contended that it cannot be held liable, as it acts solely as an intermediary between the rider and the driver, and is not party to any agreement regarding the chosen route for the journey. Furthermore, it claimed that as a goodwill gesture and to uphold the platform's reliability, Uber India refunded Uber Credits worth ₹ 975/- to the Complainant's account for the cash trip.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the original fare displayed was ₹ 358.57/- for a distance of 4.89 miles, taking 16.38 minutes. However, the Complainant paid an amount of ₹ 1334/- to the driver. Despite attributing the deficiency in service solely to the driver, the District Commission observed that the Complainant was obligated to pay the driver according to the instructions of Uber.

The District Commission held that the practice of charging excess fare than the contracted amount at the time of booking constitutes unfair trade practice. The District Commission acknowledged that consumers, like the Complainant, may not be privy to the intricacies of contracts between Uber and its drivers. The District Commission emphasized that when availing online services through well-known or branded concerns, the expectation is to have a contract with the branded service provider. Therefore, Uber's attempt to evade liability by invoking the existence of a hidden contract with the driver partner was dismissed. Uber was held liable for deficiency in services.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Uber to pay an amount of ₹ 7000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment. Uber was also directed to pay ₹ 3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. It was also directed to deposit ₹ 10,000/- as compensation in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Case Title: Ashwani Prashar vs Uber India Systems Pvt Ltd and Others

Case Number: CC/976/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order