The San Francisco-based firm Uber Cab Service Company, whose driver has been arrested for allegedly raping a 27-year-old woman in New Delhi on Friday, has been banned in the National Capital. The Delhi Government's Transport Department on Monday banned "all activities" by Uber company with immediate effect and blacklisted it from providing any transport service in Delhi in future.
The Uber cab-booking service was also briefly banned in Germany for not following proper regulations governing cabs. After the Nirbhaya gangrape on December 16, 2012, the Delhi Government cancelled the permits and licences of all buses being provided by the Yadav Bus Service.
Meanwhile, the Centre is also contemplating banning the cab services of Uber across India. The Home Ministry is planning to ask all State Governments and administration of nine Union Territories, where Uber runs its cab services, to put a ban on it, official sources told PTI on Monday.
Uber cab services are available in Bangalore, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Chennai, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Kolkata and Pune.
The Centre is also likely to ask all State Governments and UT administrations to find out whether a similar app-based taxi service is running in their jurisdiction contrary to the existing rules and regulations, the sources said.
Home Minister Rajnath Singh is expected to make a statement to this effect in Rajya Sabha on Tuesday where he may mention the steps to be taken for regulating app-based cab services.
Uber, which follows the ‘aggregator model’, is largely popular among private sector executives whose work hours often stretch late into the night. The aggregator model, also called the asset-light model, allows companies like Uber, Ola Cabs and Taxi-for-Sure to run cab-booking services without actually having any driver on their rolls unlike private taxi operators such as Meru, which owns a fleet of 10,000 cabs across 12 cities. "They don't have drivers on their rolls or taxis of their own. They operate through a network of drivers with valid licences or operators who own cars," an expert in the transport sector said. On its website, Uber has a disclaimer stating that it "is not a transportation provider".
Following countrywide protests after the rape, Uber also put out a statement on its official blog saying that they partner with "registered for-hire drivers who have undergone the commercial licensing process, hold Government issued IDs, State-issued permits, and carry full commercial insurance".
This essentially lets the companies put the onus on the Government licensing system following untoward incidents, as the service providers do not have any control over the drivers.
In the statement, the Transport Department said that Uber, the US-based cab firm, misled the commuter (rape victim) about the nature of the taxi service offered by its App. The action came a day after a taxi driver employed by Uber was arrested from Mathura for allegedly raping a 27-year-old woman executive in his cab. The Transport department's decision to ban Uber service raised serious questions as it was only a facilitator. The taxi owner was driver Shiv Kumar Yadav himself. The decision to ban the service provider seems to be taken under political pressure and media outcry. The taxi permit was granted on May 28, 2014, after due verification of character and antecedents of the permit holder.
The Government said in response to "the unfortunate and heinous crime", it had cancelled the taxi's permit and registration certificate as well as the driver's licence. The statement accused Uber of misleading the commuter, who was raped about the nature of the taxi service offered by "Uber App". Uber was also faulted for violating the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by providing the commuter for local journey a taxi with an all-India permit. "Keeping in view the above violation and the horrific crime committed by the driver, the Transport department has banned all activities related to providing any transport service by www.uber.com with immediate effect" the notice read.
"The Transport department has also blacklisted the company from providing any transport service in the National Capital Territory of Delhi in future," the statement said. It further said the Transport department has cancelled the permit and registration certificate of the taxi (Dl1YD 7910) and driving licence of the accused.
Questioning the Transport department decision, some people, who were frequently using this service, expressed surprise as Uber company was acting as a facilitator only. They hailed the cab service being provided by the company.
On the other hand, the Delhi Police alleged that the company did not conduct a basic police record check for the driver. "The company failed to check that driver had a criminal record and was tried for rape in 2011. He did not go through police verification that is mandatory for cab drivers. The address provided by the company for driver Yadav turned out to be false. The mobile number that Yadav was using was shared between three drivers who drove the car on shifts. The driver did not have the Public Service Vehicle licence required for commercial vehicles. There was no Global Positioning System or GPS in the car. The only link the company had with the driver was a phone given to him by the company with its app. Since the mobile phone was switched off, it became impossible to track the driver," the police said.
This essentially lets the companies put the onus on the Government licensing system following untoward incidents as the service providers do not have any control over the drivers.
In the statement, the Transport department said that Uber, the US-based cab firm, misled the commuter (rape victim) about the nature of the taxi service offered by its App. The action came a day after a taxi driver employed by Uber was arrested from Mathura for allegedly raping a 27-year-old woman executive in his cab.
The Transport department’s decision to ban Uber service raised serious questions as it was only a facilitator. The taxi owner was driver Shiv Kumar Yadav himself. The decision to ban the service provider seems to be taken under political pressure and media outcry. The taxi permit was granted on May 28, 2014, after due verification of character and antecedents of the permit holder.
The Government said in response to “the unfortunate and heinous crime”, it had cancelled the taxi’s permit and registration certificate as well as the driver’s licence. The statement accused Uber of misleading the commuter, who was raped about the nature of the taxi service offered by “Uber App”. Uber was also faulted for violating the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by providing the commuter for local journey a taxi with an all-India permit. “Keeping in view the above violation and the horrific crime committed by the driver, the Transport department has banned all activities related to providing any transport service by www.uber.com with immediate effect” the notice read.
“The Transport department has also blacklisted the company from providing any transport service in the National Capital Territory of Delhi in future,” the statement said. It further said the Transport department has cancelled the permit and registration certificate of the taxi (Dl1YD 7910) and driving licence of the accused.
Questioning the Transport department decision, some people, who were frequently using this service, expressed surprise as Uber company was acting as a facilitator only. They hailed the cab service being provided by the company.
On the other hand, the Delhi Police alleged that the company did not conduct a basic police record check for the driver. “The company failed to check that driver had a criminal record and was tried for rape in 2011. He did not go through police verification that is mandatory for cab drivers. The address provided by the company for driver Yadav turned out to be false. The mobile number that Yadav was using was shared between three drivers who drove the car on shifts. The driver did not have the Public Service Vehicle licence required for commercial vehicles. There was no Global Positioning System or GPS in the car. The only link the company had with the driver was a phone given to him by the company with its app. Since the mobile phone was switched off, it became impossible to track the driver,” the police said.