Courts cannot order Ola, Uber to include features in their apps: Bombay High Court

It is not within the scope of courts' powers to dictate what features cab aggregators like Ola and Uber should include in their mobile applications, the Bombay High Court observed on Tuesday in a plea against transport aggregators [Savina Crasto v. State of Maharashtra & Ors]..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik said that it is the legislature which is empowered to lay down guidelines to regulate such cab aggregators.The Court was considering the compliance report filed by the Maharashtra government in a petition that alleged that the aggregators lacked a consumer grievance redressal mechanism..Referring to the report and finding that it failed to include information on the grievance redressal mechanism, petitioner-in-person Savina Crasto stated that the High Court ought to intervene and ensure that the aggregators have proper mechanisms in place.To this the Court quipped,"The legislature has powers to issue guidelines. How can the Courts do so? You want the app to have to certain features, but can we do it?... The State is there to frame guidelines.".The report stated that Ola, Uber and 10 other cab aggregators have been granted provisional aggregators licenses under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Actand the Motor Vehicle Aggregators Guidelines of 2020..Crasto pointed out that the compliance report failed to point out if the State is going to come up with guidelines of its own, or how they would ensure that the conditions required for obtaining licenses will be kept in check.The High Court enquired if there was any mechanism provided for under the 2020 guidelines.To this, Advocate Rajshekhar Gowilkar, appearing for the Central government, submitted that the Court could not issue guidelines for individual mechanisms as the same was controlled by the aggregator companies. .Appearing for Uber, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas pointed out that a grievance redressal mechanism was available. He contended that as a company wanting to do better business, Uber did not fall back with contemporaries. "We do not like to fall behind, we do not want Ola to have better business than Uber. That is not good for our business. There is a service available of the same nature. My friend says there is no provision for complaint. If the State says there is something that I must incorporate, then we will incorporate the same. Whatever is the grievance can be checked, and the same can be deposed in an affidavit. If required, we will deal with it or incorporate it," he argued. .After hearing submissions of all counsel, the Bench suggested that since a mechanism is in place, the State and the petitioner could find out deficiencies.The Court granted two months to the State to check if the aggregators are complying with the conditions stipulated under the guidelines. "The State is expected to consider the experiences and the nature of complaints that are lodged with the aggregators with the apps formulated by the aggregators for the purpose of finding deficiency if at all in the system. The deficiencies will be addressed in a time bound manner. The State is at liberty to give suggestions to implement guidelines," the Court stated.