Delhi District Court
Case No. 421/17 vs Uber Cabs on 30 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SUSHANT CHANGOTRA,
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SHAHDARA)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Case No. 421/17
Mahendra Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Seti Lal Gupta
R/o Chotpur Colony,
Bholapur, G.B Nagar,
NOIDA, UP.
...............Plaintiff
Versus
1. UBER Cabs
Through its Director
2nd Floor, SCO 300,
Sector29, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
Also at: E16, EBlock
Main Market, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi16.
2. Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.
(A Tata Motors Subsidiary)
Through Its Director
Plot no. 88, Patparganj
Industrial Ares, Delhi92
..............Defendant
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of Institution of the case : 21.04.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.10.2019
Case No. 421/17 Narender Gupta Vs. UBER Cabs & Ors Page no. 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case of plaintiff as stated in the plaint are that he is a driver by profession. In September, 2016, defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff to work with them under the scheme of "UDHAN". The plaintiff was assured that defendant no. 1 will provide finance @ 4% per annum for purchasing the vehicle and they will also provide work on daily basis to the tune of Rs. 25003000/ after deducting the amount of EMI as per ratio. The plaintiff accordingly agreed and defendant no. 1 company received original documents of plaintiff for verification. He also paid Rs. 35,000/ to defendant no. 1.
2. Defendant no. 1 advised the plaintiff to meet defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 2 took some blank cheques and also taken signatures of plaintiff on blank papers and delivered the vehicle i.e. Indigo e CS GLS. Plaintiff started working with defendant no. 1 as per agreement executed between them. Defendant no. 1 had agreed not to terminate the contract for three years. However, the defendant no. 1 company provided work only for 3/4 days and terminated the service of plaintiff with reason that license of plaintiff is not valid.
3. On 30.03.2017, defendants no. 2 & 3 sent 4/5 persons to the house of plaintiff and they threatened the family members of plaintiff to deliver the aforesaid car.
Case No. 421/17 Narender Gupta Vs. UBER Cabs & Ors Page no. 2 of 6
4. Hence, plaintiff has filed the present suit and prayed for decree of permanent injunction for restraining defendants no 2 (& 3 qua whom suit has been dismissed) from entering in the property of plaintiff and also from harassing the plaintiff and his family members and stopping him on the way. Plaintiff has also sought decree of mandatory injunction for directing defendant no. 1 to reinstate the service of the plaintiff and provide work as per assurance.
5. Summons of the suit were served upon the defendant no. 1. AR of defendant appeared, but did not file written statement. Therefore, defence of defendant no. 1 was stuck off vide order dated 09.11.2017.
6. Summons to defendant on. 2 were also served, but the said defendant did not appear nor filed written statement. Hence, the defence of defendant no. 2 was also stuck off vide order dated 10.07.2018.
7. The plaintiff did not take steps for service of defendant no. 3 and the suit was dismissed in default qua defendant no. 3 vide order dated 01.04.2019.
8. In order to prove his case, plaintiff appeared as PW1. He tendered his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/3, Ex. Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/9 and Mark A. He closed PE on 17.10.2019.
Case No. 421/17 Narender Gupta Vs. UBER Cabs & Ors Page no. 3 of 6
9. I have heard the arguments of ld. counsel for plaintiff and gone through the evidence on record.
10. The onus to establish his case rested on plaintiff. First of all, plaintiff has prayed for decree of permanent injunction against defendant no. 2 for restraining him from entering in the property of plaintiff and also from harassing the plaintiff and his family members and stopping him on the way.
11. The cause of action for aforementioned prayer is on the basis that defendants no. 2 & 3 had financed the vehicle to plaintiff and since the plaintiff is not repaying the loan installments, therefore, they want to repossess the same. During the course of arguments, counsel for plaintiff had argued that the aforementioned vehicle had already been repossessed. Therefore, the basic cause of action for the aforementioned prayer has become infructuous.
12. Moreover, the plaintiff has not proved any document in the form of hypothecation agreement or registration certificate to show that the said vehicle was purchased by him at any point of time. Even as per averments of plaint, plaintiff had not paid the installments. Therefore, from all the aspects, plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for.
13. Secondly, the plaintiff has prayed for decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant no. 1 company i.e. Uber Cabs to Case No. 421/17 Narender Gupta Vs. UBER Cabs & Ors Page no. 4 of 6 reinstate the services of plaintiff and provide work as per agreement. The case of plaintiff is that the defendant no. 1 company had entered into the contract of personal service with plaintiff, but they have repudiated the contract. In Dr. S. Dutt v. University of Delhi 1958 AIR 1050 and S. R. Tewari v. Dist. Board, Agra, AIR 1991 SC 2085, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "The position of law is that no declaration to enforce a contract of personal service will be normally granted. But there are certain wellrecognized exceptions to this rule and they are:
To grant such a declarations in appropriate cases regarding:
(1) A public servant, who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311.
(2) Reinstatement of a dismissed worker under Industrial Law by Labour or Industrial Tribunals.
(3) A statutory body when it has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation, imposed by statute".
Therefore, the aforementioned prayed is not maintainable on this ground.
14. The plaintiff has also not produced any document to show that any such agreement was executed between him and defendant no. 1. In the plaint, it has been repeatedly mentioned that defendant no. 1 company had approached the plaintiff and assured him of the work as pleaded, whereas, Case No. 421/17 Narender Gupta Vs. UBER Cabs & Ors Page no. 5 of 6 defendant no. 1 is a company and it must have act through its officers or officials. However, plaintiff has neither pleaded nor deposed the name of any such official of defendant no. 1 company who had approached him. Therefore, from all the aspects, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case.
15. Thus, in view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to be concluded that plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to decree of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned Digitally signed by to record room after due compliance. SUSHANT SUSHANT CHANGOTRA CHANGOTRA Date: 2019.10.30 16:33:25 +0530 (Announced in the open court) (SUSHANT CHANGOTRA) th 30 October, 2019 ASCJ (SHAHDARA)/KKD/30.10.2019 Case No. 421/17 Narender Gupta Vs. UBER Cabs & Ors Page no. 6 of 6