.jpg?width=1200)
Mumbai: A Wadala resident, Reema Chawla, has expressed her dissatisfaction with the recent ruling by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC), which rejected her complaint against Uber taxi aggregator. She is preparing to file an appeal against the decision, stating that the judgment failed to address her concerns adequately.
The dispute arose after Chawla was stranded on a Mumbai road at 2 a.m. with her ailing pet. She claimed that Uber drivers repeatedly refused to provide her with a ride due to the presence of her dog, leaving her pet in a precarious situation. Chawla was particularly displeased with the court’s ruling that she should have provided a health and vaccination certificate from a veterinary surgeon to transport her sick pet. She argued that the circumstances made it impossible to obtain such a certificate at that hour.
Chawla’s lawyer, Advocate Prashant Nayak, very soon is to challenge the ruling at the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, citing significant legal oversights. One key issue is that Uber’s written statement, which was submitted after a 45-day delay, had previously been dismissed by both the DCDRC and the State Consumer Commission. However, during the final arguments, Uber allegedly introduced new evidence and arguments, which Nayak contends were improperly considered by the court.
"Uber did not specifically deny the two incidents in its written statement," said Nayak. "In fact, the company admitted that Chawla was with her dog, that a ride was booked, and that it was later cancelled. Uber even expressed sincere regrets for the experience she faced. Yet, the District Commission allowed Uber to introduce new evidence and arguments at the last moment without giving us a fair opportunity to rebut them."
.jpg)
.jpg)
Nayak also criticized the court for its observation that there is no law governing the transportation of pets in public transport, arguing that it failed to consider the absence of laws barring pets from private services like Uber. He emphasized that this point was a central part of the complainant's case.
When contacted by the Free Press Journal, Chawla compared her experience to that of businessman Vijay Mallya, who faced a similar situation with Uber in 2015 but chose not to pursue legal action. "Unlike him, I chose to fight—not just for myself, but for every voiceless animal and every citizen whose rights are trampled in favor of corporate convenience. I wanted justice and a change in their inhumane policies, but they refused. Now, after all this, my case is dismissed. But I will appeal further because these animals may not have a voice, but I do."
