State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sonika Bhatia vs Uber Services on 17 March, 2021
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 24 of 2020 Date of Institution 29.01.2020 Date of Decision 17.03.2021 Sonika Bhatia aged 42 years D/o Late Sh. B.N.Bhatia, R/o H.No.2051, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh. .....Appellant/Complainant Versus Uber Services, Godrej Enternia, Plot No.70, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh 160047. .....Respondent/Opposite Party BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by: Ms. Sonika Bhatia, appellant in person.
None for the respondent.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against an order dated 27.12.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, with no order as to cost, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant had hired the services of opposite party on 12.03.2019 to travel from Sector-45, Chandigarh to Mohali Phase-8B. It was stated that duration of the travel was 21 minutes & 8 seconds and distance was 9.92 kms. It was further stated that on booking she received a message on phone regarding the total amount to be paid to the driver,which was Rs.99.60. It was further stated that on completion of journey, another message was received to pay Rs.116.53. It was further stated that she insisted the payment of Rs.99.60 to the driver, but he declined and then she paid Rs.116.53 to the driver, as such he overcharged Rs.16.93 from her, in defiance to the previous message received. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint was filed.
The Opposite Party filed its written version of the case, stated that the aforesaid opposite party is non-existent party and actually Uber India Systems Private Limited is a technology service provider that connects independent third party providers of transportation services to the drivers' partners. It was further stated that the Uber India does not provide transportation or logistic services. It was further stated that the complainant had accepted the terms & conditions by downloading the Uber App. It was further stated that Uber B.V. ought to have been impleaded as party in the complaint and reference was made to the order of the dismissal of the complaint at the time of preliminary stage. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, and remaining averments, were denied, being wrong, on the part of the Opposite Party.
In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, she prayed that if need be, Uber B.V. may be arrayed as party and also reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
After hearing the Complainant in person and Counsel for the Opposite Party,and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 27.12.2019.
We have heard the Complainant in person, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
On a perusal of the impugned order of the learned District Forum, we find the said matter has been adjudicated by the District Forum and passed an order on 04.06.2019 vide which the said complaint has not been admitted and proceeded to dismiss it at preliminary stage. The matter was carried in appeal and the State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh set aside the order of the Forum vide order dated 07.11.2019and remitted the matter back to the Forum to take on record reply and evidence of the Opposite Party and then to dispose it preferably. The Forum had recorded that the same record was considered by them at the preliminary stage alongwith evidence of the complainant, rather additional pleas were raised by the Opposite Party in the form of written statement claiming that Uber B.V. ought to have been arrayed as a party and the present Opposite Party has been unnecessarily joined. Accordingly, the facts given do not call for any deficiency in service.
On a perusal of the record, we find that the final bill was Rs.116.53 in which tentative bill of Rs.99.60 has also been mentioned. The foundation of the complaint was on the basis of the tentative bill which had varied finally due to various reasons and the appellant could not prove on record how the bill could be contained at Rs.99.60. The learned District Forum found that there was no case of unfair trade practice and accordingly, vide its order dated 27.12.2019, the complaint was dismissed, and going by the above discussion, this Commission also dismisses the said appeal, with no order as to cost, because there is no evidence to prove that provisional bill has to be treated as final bill.
The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Parties.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
17.3.2021 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER Sd/-
[RAJESH K. ARYA] MEMBER Gp