Delhi High Court - Orders
Rahul Bajaj vs Uber India Technology Private Limited ... on 24 December, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 18010/2024
RAHUL BAJAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amar Jain and Mr. Taha Bin
Tasneem, Advocates with Petitioner
in person.
versus
UBER INDIA TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED (UBER) &
ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, SPC with Mr.
Hussain Adil Taqvi, GP, Ms. Usha
Jamnal and Mr. Krishnan Kumar,
Advocates for R-2/ UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 24.12.2024
1. The Petitioner, a visually impaired person and a practising Advocate, has filed the instant petition being aggrieved by the discriminatory and disrespectful behaviour meted out to him by the drivers engaged with Respondent No. 1- Uber India Technology Private Limited1 while booking an auto ride. The Petitioner contends that he recently encountered several challenges while availing services from Uber. He asserts that the auto driver refused to drop the Petitioner to his destination, stating that he would have to assist him in navigating from the vehicle to the entrance of the cafe that the 1 "Uber"
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:13:01 Petitioner was traveling to. The auto driver stated that this would result in an wastage of his time and energy. After some persuasion, the driver reluctantly agreed for the ride, but continued exhibiting further disrespectful behaviour.
2. The Petitioner asserts that this conduct exemplifies systemic discrimination and highlights the failure of ride-hailing services such as Uber to ensure that their drivers are adequately trained and sensitized in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Petitioner argues that Uber proclaims zero-tolerance policy against discrimination, which, in reality, has proven ineffective in facilitating disability sensitisation. The Petitioner further contends that despite having posted about such incidents on his social media, he continued to experience reluctance from Uber's auto drivers. In light of the foregoing, the Petitioner, through the present petition, seeks appropriate redress for the discrimination faced by persons with disabilities.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Farman Ali, SPC, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
4. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
5. Issue notice to the remaining Respondent, upon filing of process fee, returnable on the next date of hearing. On service, such Respondent shall file a counter affidavit within a period of four weeks from the date of service.
6. Respondent No. 1 is directed to provide a specific response to ground
(m), and Respondent No. 2 is directed to address ground (j), while submitting their respective response through counter affidavit(s).
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:13:01
7. Re-notify on 27th March, 2025.
SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 24, 2024 d.negi This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2024 at 22:13:01