One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
Priya Nair, a software professional based in Pune, used a popular ride-hailing app for her daily commute to her office in Kothrud. She depended on it almost every working day. Around 18 February 2025, she found herself in a distressing situation mid-ride and instinctively pressed the in-app emergency button — the feature the platform had prominently advertised as a passenger safety tool. Nothing happened. No alert was sent. No response came. The feature simply did not function.
Priya raised the issue through the app's support chat but received only templated replies. She filed a written complaint with the platform's grievance officer. Again, no satisfactory resolution. A consumer complaint she filed on her own through the local District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Pune initially stalled because she hadn't properly documented the technical failure or preserved the ride data in the right format.
She then approached Advocate Sudhir Rao. The approach shifted completely. The matter was framed not just as a service deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but also as a failure of a statutory safety obligation owed to passengers. Screen recordings, ride receipt data, platform terms of service, and a formal technical failure report were compiled methodically. Within a reasonable period, the Commission ruled in Priya's favour, directing compensation and directing the platform to acknowledge the deficiency in writing. The structured, domain-specific approach made all the difference where earlier efforts had produced nothing.
Advice in Such Cases
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
Document the failure the moment it happens. Don't wait even a day. Screenshots of the emergency feature screen, your ride receipt, booking ID, date, time, driver details — all of it. This contemporaneous record becomes your primary evidence before the Consumer Commission, and without it, your complaint starts on the back foot.
Before filing any complaint anywhere, send a written notice to the platform's registered grievance officer by registered post or email with delivery confirmation. This creates a paper trail. And here's the thing — courts and commissions actively look for this step. Skipping it can quietly undermine an otherwise solid complaint.
Cases involving digital service deficiencies and passenger safety carry specific procedural requirements: evidentiary standards around electronic records under the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and consumer law timelines that a general practitioner may not be fully across. Engaging an advocate who regularly handles consumer technology and passenger safety matters typically leads to sharper pleadings and faster relief.
Applicable Sections of Law
This matter falls squarely within civil consumer law, with potential overlap with IT law on electronic evidence. The key provisions are:
- Section 2(11) read with Section 35, Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Defines "deficiency in service" and governs complaints before the District, State, or National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission based on the value of claim.
- Section 2(47), Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Defines "unfair trade practice," applicable where the platform falsely advertises an emergency feature that does not function.
- Section 65B, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (replacing the old Section 65B Indian Evidence Act): Governs admissibility of electronic records, including screenshots and app logs, which must be accompanied by a certificate to be admissible.
- Section 94, Information Technology Act, 2000 read with IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Places obligations on platforms regarding grievance redressal mechanisms and response timelines.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
Jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is determined by the value of the claim and compensation sought:
- District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: Claims up to Rs. 50 lakhs — most daily commuter cases will fall here.
- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: Claims between Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 2 crores.
- National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: Claims exceeding Rs. 2 crores.
- Territorial jurisdiction: File in the district where the complainant resides, works, or where the cause of action (the failed ride) arose — as held in Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (SC).
Get jurisdiction right from the start. Getting it wrong means rejection at the admission stage itself, and that's time you won't get back.
Limitation Period
Two years. That's your window.
Under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose — here, the date the emergency feature failed during the ride. Missing this window can be fatal to the complaint. A condonation of delay application under the same section is available if there is sufficient cause, but frankly, commissions aren't generous about granting it in consumer matters. Act promptly. Don't wait.
Interim Reliefs Available
Consumer Commissions have powers to grant interim relief under Section 38(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which allows the Commission to issue interim orders restraining a party from repeating or continuing an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice, or disposing of goods, or withdrawing a deficient service. So where a platform continues to advertise a non-functional safety feature to thousands of users, the Commission can be moved to direct removal or correction of that advertisement pending final hearing. Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2 CPC principles are often applied analogously by Consumer Commissions when fashioning interim relief in urgent matters.
How Courts Typically Approach Such Cases
Consumer Commissions in India have become increasingly receptive to technology-related service deficiency cases since the National Commission's ruling in Fazlur Rahman v. Airtel, 2019. Courts look at whether the platform made a specific representation about the feature, whether that representation induced reliance, and whether the failure caused demonstrable harm or risk. Now, before you act, understand this: judges scrutinise electronic evidence carefully, and a complaint without a properly certified Section 65B certificate for screenshots and app data often struggles at the evidence stage. But the law differs on one thing platforms like to argue — their standard defence of "technical glitch beyond our control" is not automatically accepted if the deficiency is systemic or recurring.
If You Are the Victim
- Record the failure immediately — screenshot the emergency screen showing the non-response, and note the exact date, time, and ride ID.
- Do not delete the app or the ride history; this data is evidence and needs to be preserved in its original form.
- Send a written complaint to the platform's registered Grievance Officer within 30 days of the incident and retain proof of sending.
- If the platform does not respond meaningfully within 30 days, proceed to a consumer complaint before the appropriate District Commission.
- Keep a log of every instance the feature has failed — a pattern of failure strengthens the "deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice" arguments considerably.
Documents You Must Keep Ready
- Aadhaar card or PAN card as identity proof
- Ride receipt or booking confirmation (email or in-app) showing the date, time, route, and driver details
- Screenshots of the emergency feature screen at the time of failure
- Screen recording of the failed emergency interaction, if available
- Copies of all complaints sent to the platform's grievance officer, with delivery proof
- Platform's terms of service or in-app safety page that advertises the emergency feature
- Any medical or police records if the safety failure led to physical harm or danger
- Bank or payment records confirming you paid for the ride in question
What Evidence Is Required?
- Primary electronic evidence: Screenshots and screen recordings of the failed emergency feature — must be accompanied by a Section 65B, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam certificate to be admissible.
- Ride data: Booking confirmation, ride ID, GPS log if accessible — establishes the service contract.
- Platform's own representations: Archive of the app's safety page or advertisements promising the emergency feature — establishes the promise and its breach.
- Grievance correspondence: All written exchanges with the platform's support and grievance officer — shows the platform was aware and failed to remedy.
- Pattern evidence: Public complaints on consumer forums, app store reviews, or media reports of the same failure — corroborates that this is a systemic deficiency, not an isolated incident.
- Expert technical affidavit: In higher-value claims, a certified IT expert's opinion on why the feature failed can be compelling secondary evidence.
Timeline of Legal Process
- Week 1-2: Document the failure, preserve all electronic evidence, send legal notice to platform's grievance officer.
- Week 3-6: If no resolution, draft and file consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — approximate filing time once documents are ready: 1-2 weeks with counsel.
- Month 2-3: Admission of complaint and issuance of notice to opposite party (the platform).
- Month 3-5: Platform files written reply / version; complainant files rejoinder.
- Month 5-9: Evidence stage — affidavits, Section 65B certificates, documentary evidence placed on record.
- Month 9-12: Arguments heard by the Commission.
- Month 12-18: Order passed. Consumer cases under the 2019 Act are supposed to be disposed of within 3-5 months of filing, though in practice timelines vary.
- If appealed: State Commission appeal adds approximately 12-24 months; NCDRC further 12-18 months.
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?
Yes — and in many cases, that's exactly how it ends. Consumer matters are well-suited to pre-litigation or in-litigation settlement through several routes:
- Direct negotiation: After a formal legal notice, platforms often offer compensation or acknowledgement to avoid Commission proceedings.
- Mediation: Under Section 37 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission can refer parties to mediation at any stage. Mediation cells are now attached to most District Commissions.
- Lok Adalat: Consumer disputes — both pending and pre-litigation — can be referred to Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Awards passed by Lok Adalat are deemed decrees and are not appealable, giving finality.
- Compromise deed: If the platform agrees to compensate, a formal compromise deed should be executed and placed before the Commission for a consent order under Section 89 CPC principles.
Settlement makes sense where the compensation offered is fair and your primary goal is acknowledgement of the deficiency rather than a drawn-out public contest. Make no mistake, though — don't accept any verbal assurance. Get it in writing, always.
Common Mistakes People Make
- Delaying action: Many passengers assume the platform will self-correct and wait months before acting. This eats into the two-year limitation window and causes evidence to disappear.
- Not preserving electronic evidence correctly: Deleting the app, clearing cache, or simply taking a photo of the screen rather than a proper screenshot destroys the evidentiary value of the record.
- Skipping the formal grievance stage: Filing directly at the Commission without first sending a written notice to the platform's grievance officer weakens the complaint narrative and may affect interim relief applications.
- Posting detailed complaints on social media before filing: Public posts can inadvertently prejudice the legal process, trigger defamation counter-claims from aggressive platforms, or alert the opposite party to your evidence before you have filed.
- Accepting an informal verbal assurance from the platform's support team: Get everything in writing. Verbal promises of "we'll fix it" have no legal value before a Commission.
- Engaging an advocate without specific experience in consumer technology and passenger safety cases: This category of case involves nuanced procedural requirements — particularly around electronic evidence certification under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, platform liability under IT intermediary rules, and the structure of deficiency and unfair trade practice arguments. A general practitioner unfamiliar with these intersecting frameworks may miss critical procedural steps, leading to complaints being returned or evidence being rejected at the admission stage itself.