Inconveniencing mobility?
Inadequate consumer redressal mechanisms by cab aggregators
Cab aggregator giants such as Ola and Uber started their business in Bengaluru almost a decade ago, using digital technology to alleviate travel within the city. The introduction of these services was met with approval by the citizens of Bengaluru, as they provided an alternative to public transportation such as buses and reduced the potential for arbitrary pricing by auto drivers.
Nevertheless, even a decade later, these applications have not yet achieved the service efficiency intended to ease urban transportation. As reported by the National Consumer Helpline, between 2021-22, over 3,000 grievances were filed against two prominent cab aggregators. Since 2017, approximately 18,890 grievances have been registered by consumers against aggregator companies, citing deficiencies in services, especially regarding inadequate consumer grievance redressal mechanisms and the absence of alternative means of redressal. Are consumer redressal mechanisms adequate in handling a complaint of an unsatisfactory or unsafe ride? If not, does the law address this shortcoming? Or is the law in itself inadequate to provide redress for consumers?
How are complaints currently addressed?
Complaints are filed on the app once the ride is complete. Some apps provide a list of pre-defined options. In others, a detailed description of the issue can be provided, or complainants can verbally exchange information with a customer service representative. Each application employs different methods for addressing consumer grievances including emails and telephone communication. In some cases, especially when the complainant needs to escalate the complaint (such as in cases of sexual harassment or theft), the complainant is prompted to contact external sources, such as the police, to pursue further recourse.
Consumer hotlines have witnessed complaints of delays and a lack of responses by consumers against these mechanisms. One of the main problems is the lack of uniformity in grievance redressal mechanisms across these platforms, such as by cab aggregator giants Ola and Uber. Further, there are issues of non-consideration of complaints, particularly those of a serious nature that affect passenger safety, such as instances of harassment (both verbal and physical) or against women.
What is the law in place?
The Karnataka On-Demand Transportation Technology Aggregator Rules 2016 (‘the Rules’), require aggregators to ensure an ‘adequate’ mechanism for receiving passengers’ feedback grievances. The Rules provide an overview of the duties of cab drivers and aggregators, including providing feedback registers in taxis, offering toll-free numbers, and appointing grievance officers. However, concerning the establishment of grievance mechanisms, the Rules permit aggregators to adopt a self-regulatory approach, whereby they are at liberty to interpret and implement grievance mechanisms that they consider to be ‘adequate’.
The definition of the word ‘adequate’ remains absent from the Rules. It would, therefore, make sense to take the word ‘adequate’ in its literal meaning, which is ‘quality that is acceptable or satisfactory’. This means that the aggregators must provide a service (in this case a grievance mechanism) that meets this threshold. This threshold is also illustrated under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, which defines ‘inadequacy’ as a deficiency or shortcoming in a service’s quality or manner of performance. Nevertheless, the mere identification of a lack of definition is insufficient. As evidenced by the numerous consumer complaints, the redressal models implemented by aggregators are currently ineffective in protecting consumer rights. In this regard, ideally, the Rules need to be more precise in what grievance models should look like. Furthermore, the self-regulatory model prescribed by the Rules requires reconsideration.
The Rules appear incomplete and inadequate in that they do not establish an institutional model or standardised guidelines to be adopted by cab aggregators to set up their consumer redressal mechanisms. Per the World Bank’s advisory note on best practices in the establishment of grievance mechanisms, those companies that are considered to be good practice ensure easy accessibility (user-friendly), are open to a wide range of issues and increase transparency in the handling of complaints. Furthermore, the aforementioned model/guidelines in the Rules should also ensure uniformity across various aggregators, thus facilitating easier accessibility to grievance mechanisms across all platforms. Such uniformity would also facilitate the enforcement of the legislation, ensuring compliance across all aggregators.
The World Bank posits that ‘a good grievance mechanism should be simple to understand, but not simplistic in its dealings with people and issues.’ The argument presented in this piece does not assert that the customer is always correct or that the law must impose excessive regulatory constraints on the operations of cab aggregators in urban areas. It proposes that an addition to the legislation in the form of a model or guidelines for implementation by aggregators could lead to an improvement in the efficacy of grievance redressal across different aggregators. This would improve reliability, customer satisfaction, and prioritize the safety of riders.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
Filed Under
About the Authors
Navami Krishnamurthy is a Research Fellow for the Founder’s Office at Vidhi Karnataka. Her research interests lie in the areas of constitutional law, criminal and gender justice and their interplay with society. Before joining Vidhi, Navami worked under Senior Advocate Dr. Aditya Sondhi at his Bangalore chambers and engaged in constitutional, criminal and civil matters as well as research in the areas of criminal and constitutional law. She holds an undergraduate degree (BA LLB (Hons.) Programme) in law from OP Jindal Global University, Sonepat. Her hobbies include travelling, watching true-crime documentaries, horror movies and reading.
