Mumbai: In a recent appeal filed before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Reema Chawla, a Wadala resident, has challenged a ruling by the Central District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
Chawla’s original complaint, in which she sought a more pet-friendly environment in services, was dismissed by the District Commission on the grounds that there was no binding agreement, legal provision, or established rule to support her claim.
The case began when Chawla in November 2020, accompanied by her sick pet dog, was stranded in the early hours at 2:36 a.m. after two Uber cab service denied her ride request. Chawla stated that the refusal caused significant distress and jeopardized her safety and her pet’s health.
In her appeal, she argues that the District Commission overlooked key aspects of the law, particularly sections 3 and 4 of the Transportation of Animal Rules, 1978, which she claims do not apply in cases where individuals travel with their pets in local transport for necessary purposes, such as medical treatment for pets or caring for stray animals.
Chawla’s advocate, Prashant Nayak, highlighted procedural issues with the District Commission’s ruling. He noted that the cab company, Uber, failed to submit a written defense within the limitation time, only presenting evidence belatedly during the final arguments.
“The District Commission ignored settled principles of law, resulting in a denial of justice and hardship for Ms. Chawla, who is genuinely advocating for the rights of voiceless animals,” stated Nayak.
Chawla’s appeal further referenced the Supreme Court’s recognition of animals’ rights to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that her dog’s rights, alongside her own, were violated. She also raised concerns over her safety, being left stranded at a late hour.
