A consumer dispute forum in Maharashtra recently directed Uber India to pay ₹20,000 to a Mumbai lawyer who missed her flight on account of a delayed cab ride to the airport..The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thane observed that Uber was responsible for the defective service rendered to the complainant, Kavita Sharma, who is an advocate by profession. Considering the mental agony faced by Sharma for the delay in reaching the airport due to the negligence and careless behaviour of the Uber driver, the Commission directed that she be granted compensation to the tune of ₹10,000 as well as ₹10,000 in litigation costs..Sharma had to travel to Chennai from Mumbai in 2018 for a crucial meeting. She had booked a cab from her Dombivli residence at 3:29 pm to catch a 5:50 pm flight at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA) located 36 kilometres away from her house. Taking into account the traffic, it was estimated that it would take her one hour to reach the airport. Due to various delays caused on the driver's end, Sharma alleged that she reached the airport at 5:23 pm and missed her flight. .Sharma stated in her complaint that the driver arrived at the pick up spot only 14 minutes after the booking was confirmed. Thereafter, he allegedly took a wrong turn, in a direction opposite to the one suggested in the app, in order to refill the CNG tank in his car. Sharma also claimed that the fare turned out to be higher than the one shown to her on the app, when she had booked the cab. After lodging a complaint with Uber regarding the delay and fare difference, Uber refunded her the excess amount of ₹139 after realising it was their driver’s mistake, Sharma’s complaint stated.However, dissatisfied with this amount, Sharma lodged a complaint with the district forum, which issued notice to Uber India. .Uber claimed that it only scheduled transportation services as an aggregator, and was not responsible for any default committed by the drivers.Those drivers were independent third party contractors, and not Uber employees, which meant that the company could not be held liable, it was argued..The Commission, however, concluded that the since the app was managed by Uber, all transactions and services were managed by the app. Sharma availed services by using the mobile application, and paid consideration to the app for using transportation services, not to the driver. Thus, it granted compensation to Sharma.