Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Karnataka High Court Upholds Regulation on Auto-rickshaw Aggregator Fares

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Karnataka High Court, in a landmark decision, has upheld the State Government's notification regulating fare rates for auto-rickshaws on aggregator platforms like Uber and OLA. The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Uber India Systems Private Limited and ANI Technologies Private Limited (operating as OLA), challenging the notification issued on November 25, 2022.

The case arose when the State Government issued a notification fixing fare rates for auto-rickshaws operating through aggregator platforms and regulating the service charges levied by these aggregators. Uber and OLA contended that the State Government overstepped its jurisdiction, arguing that the notification was arbitrary, mala fide, and ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines, 2020.

Uber's Contentions:

Represented by Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan, Uber argued that it is a technology-based aggregator facilitating transportation services through the Uber App. They started onboarding auto-rickshaws in 2018.

Uber challenged a notice and order issued on October 6 and 11, 2022, respectively, directing it to stop aggregating auto-rickshaws due to a lack of a valid license and breach of fare notifications .

Uber maintained that the State had no authority to regulate service fees, which should fall under Uber's business domain and expertise. They cited that the fare and service charge regulation should follow the Central Government's guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

OLA's Contentions:

Represented by Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, OLA argued that auto-rickshaws fall under the definition of 'motor cab' and should not be excluded from the scope of taxi services.

OLA contended that the State's notification discriminated against it while not targeting other aggregators like Namma Yatri and RAPIDO, which were allegedly violating the fare notifications .

State Government's Defense:

Initially presented by Advocate General Prabhuling K. Navadagi and later by Shashi Kiran Shetty, the State argued that the notification was within its powers under Sections 67 and 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The State emphasized that the notification aimed to protect public interest by ensuring fare transparency and preventing exploitative pricing by aggregators .

Court's Observations:

The court found that the Central Government's guidelines under Section 93 are persuasive and not mandatory, allowing the State discretion in fare and service charge regulation .

It was established that there can be no estoppel against the statute, and participation in consultative processes does not preclude aggregators from challenging the service charges .

The court upheld the service charge cap of 5% set by the State, emphasizing the need for regulatory oversight to prevent system abuse by aggregators .

The court clarified that a separate license for aggregating auto-rickshaws is unnecessary under the existing vehicle-agnostic licenses issued to aggregators like Uber and OLA .

Decision: The writ petitions filed by Uber and OLA were dismissed, affirming the State's notification regulating fare rates and service charges. The court allowed aggregators to collect service charges as per the impugned notification but restricted them from charging surge pricing beyond regulated limits .

This ruling reinforces the State's regulatory authority over aggregator platforms, highlighting the importance of fair practices and transparency in fare and service charge determination. It marks a significant step towards protecting consumer interests and ensuring fair competition in the transportation services sector.

Date of Decision: 27th May 2024

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Similar News