The Bombay High Court Monday directed the Maharashtra government to submit its affidavit on the statutory regime for operation of application-based cabs such as Uber along with the terms and conditions that are attached to the licenses issued to the cab aggregators as per the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik was hearing a PIL filed by city-based advocate Savina Crasto, who raised grievances regarding “complex and ineffective” redressal mechanism provided by an app-based cab aggregator.
The petitioner, referring to her personal experience last year, said that a cab driver was driving rashly at night and stopped the vehicle in the middle of the route, claiming there was a problem in the car and that she should cancel the trip.
The petitioner stated that as she was alone and did not want to arrive late for a work-related meeting, she booked another vehicle and had to pay more than the fare shown for the first vehicle. The PIL then cited another incident faced by her parents, where they had to shell out a sum over and above the fare they had booked the cab for.
The petitioner had approached the respondent service provider on all the available email addresses with her grievances. However, the emails had either bounced back or no reply was received. Crasto then raised the issue with the central and state government and after getting no response, she approached the High Court.
The PIL sought from the court directions to the app-based cab service provider to comply with “statutory obligations” in “letter and spirit” for “larger public interest” and to resolve customers’ complaints without any “embargo on their length” in a time-bound manner. The petition also sought from the central and state governments to strictly implement the Motor Vehicles Aggregators Guidelines, 2020.
During the previous hearing, the state government had told the High Court that it has framed a policy to regulate cab aggregators on the basis of the Centre’s 2020 guidelines and the said policy was awaiting approval from the state cabinet or council of ministers.
On Monday, appearing for Uber, advocate Ankit Lohia submitted that his client only acts as a facilitator or agent between drivers and customers and that it addresses complaints of customers through a 24×7 helpline.
After the bench queried about the statutory permission for the cab aggregators, additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan representing the state government said the Maharashtra City Taxi Rules, a regulatory policy, was framed in 2017 and after it was challenged in the High Court, a status quo was ordered by the court.
The Bench then sought from Chavan instructions from the officials concerned on the aspect of submission of report of the Khatua Committee, awaiting which, the state government had made a statement before a coordinate bench of the court on June 30, 2017 that no coercive steps would be taken in pursuance of the 2017 Rules.
“The consequence of such a statement is indeed serious, in as much as, even if an aggregator does not obtain a license, which is an express requirement of Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules, the state would not be in a position to act against him although the mandate of Section 93 of the Act is that an aggregator has to obtain a license. The statement made before the coordinate Bench has the effect of stultifying operation of the legislative mandate,” the Bench noted in its order.
The court also asked the respondent cab aggregator to file an affidavit by January 5 indicating as to whether it has obtained the requisite license under the provisions of the law and if obtained, a copy of the same shall be attached with the affidavit.
High Court posted the PIL for further hearing on January 10, 2022.
Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/bombay-hc-seeks-maharashtra-govts-reply-on-app-cab-rules-asks-uber-if-it-has-obtained-license-under-mv-act-7683580/
