Mumbai:

A consumer commission in Mumbai has dismissed a woman’s complaint against cab aggregator Uber for its drivers refusing her rides when she was accompanied by her pet dog.

There is no law or legal provision in India regarding the transportation of pets in public vehicles, said the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, in an order passed on Tuesday.

In her complaint filed in June 2022, the woman, a resident from Mumbai’s Wadala, stated that despite the company’s pet-friendly policies, she was denied a ride by Uber drivers on two occasions after she informed them that her pet dog would be traveling with her.

The woman demanded Rs 10 lakh in compensation for “deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, mental agony, and litigation expenses”.

She also requested the commission to direct the company to take measures to allow commuters to travel with pets and stray animals in the cabs.

Uber India pointed out that the complainant did not make the drivers — against whom the woman had the grievance — parties to the case.

There was no evidence to back her allegations except that she informed the drivers about traveling with a pet dog, it said.

There was no policy in India regarding allowing pet animals to travel in public transport, the company said, demanding that the complaint be dismissed.

The commision, after reviewing the company’s business model, noted that the drivers canceled the ride at their discretion, and Uber India could not be blamed for it.

“Additionally, there is no evidence showing that the complainant informed the driver that a pet would be accompanying them, nor is there any established law or provision in India regarding pet transportation in public vehicles,” it observed.

Nor did the woman provide any evidence to show that the policies related to pets, which may be applicable in other countries where Uber operates, are binding on the company in India too, said the commission.

But it noted that her “concerns regarding the need for a pet-friendly environment are acknowledged and appear to be made in good faith and essential.” “The absence of any binding agreements, specific legal provisions, or established rules on this matter prevents us from granting the relief as requested,” the commission said, while dismissing her plea.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)