[sgiitk]

May I ask another question - with Uber, and Ola banned then will there be enough radio cabs to meet the demand. Also, very soon you may have the cabbies of these organisations up in arms since they will be out of work. We should take a more rational approach. Put the regulations in place, enforce strictly and fix any culprits. Also, i suspect Uber being card based pays more taxes that the yellow-blacks. Also, the yellow-black cabbies are no angels.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Actually, the government has no legal basis to ban Uber. Uber is a service which connects licensed taxi owners to customers. It does not require any license itself.

As law stands in this country & most other countries, you would need a license to operate a taxi service in city. Note that yellow board registration is not a license for cab service in a city. It would be no problem if Uber connect customers with licensed operators. But Uber is connecting customer with un-licensed operators (individual drivers in this case). That is the crux. While I am no fan of license-raj, it would be unfair for those who have legally obtained the license for taxi operation. It should be level playing field for everyone.

Originally Posted by noopster

(technically I am breaking the law if I carpool to work and accept compensation from my fellow poolers to split the fuel cost. It's stupid and regressive, but that's no surprise since most of our laws are obsolete).

By car pooling or ferrying family members (even though they pay), you are not breaking any law, since you are not providing 'taxi' service.

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Put the regulations in place, enforce strictly and fix any culprits.

Yes, India is biggest market for Uber after US. So app based cab booking is not going away. I am sure Uber like services will continue to exist, may be with some regulations.

[sdp1975]

The Delhi 2006 radio taxi scheme applies to *radio* taxis. On the legal front , it doesn't look like Uber can be equated to a radio taxi operator, so they have a fair chance of contesting the ban in court by contending that they do not fall under the 2006 radio taxi scheme.

In fact , there's no law currently in place to handle Uber-like platforms. See also http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rules-for...208-3-244.html and http://www.delhi.gov.in/DoIT/DoIT_Transport/trrs31.pdf

[poloman]

Originally Posted by Axe77

2. To my knowledge (but I've not researched this) without an All India Permit (AIP) you cannot service inter city travel, but with an AIP you can service intra city as well as inter city. For instance if I book a car from Orix with an All India Permit, it can serve me throughout the day within Mumbai as well as take me to Pune and back for my work. The same goes with numerous other cab companies who we have corporate tie ups with. They give us cars for the entire day both for within the city as well as outside using their AIPs.
Again, I reserve final opinion on this in the absence of specific research but that is my broad understanding. Happy to be corrected with something that has specific backing.

Giving out car for entire day is different from point to point cab service. This is against Indian laws.
You can read yourselves and conclude how many laws Uber is following how many they are breaking.
http://www.delhi.gov.in/DoIT/DoIT_Transport/trrs31.pdf
Edit: The link is already posted. Still this answers most of the questions raised here.
This reads
The radio taxi licensee shall be responsible for quality of drivers, their police
verification, employer control and supervision of drivers, employee behavior etc. The
employers shall also ensure that the drivers are totally safe, reliable and trustworthy.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by poloman

Giving out car for entire day is different from point to point cab service. This is against Indian laws.
You can read yourselves and conclude how many laws Uber is following how many they are breaking.
http://www.delhi.gov.in/DoIT/DoIT_Transport/trrs31.pdf
Edit: The link is already posted. Still this answers most of the questions raised here.

You have made very specific allegations of Uber breaking laws such as driving to the airport and waiting outside etc. Please provide a point by point explanation rather than throwing the rule book at us (literally).

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by msdivy

As law stands in this country & most other countries, you would need a license to operate a taxi service in city. Note that yellow board registration is not a license for cab service in a city. It would be no problem if Uber connect customers with licensed operators. But Uber is connecting customer with un-licensed operators (individual drivers in this case). That is the crux. While I am no fan of license-raj, it would be unfair for those who have legally obtained the license for taxi operation. It should be level playing field for everyone.

Uber is not your traditional taxi service company. It only connects drivers to passengers via an app. If the framework of laws do not exist for such a service, you cannot arbitrarily apply the closest possible law and ban them.
Also, they are individual drivers with valid commercial driving licences, licences which are legally obtained with background checks and permit cabs.

[poloman]

Originally Posted by noopster

You have made very specific allegations of Uber breaking laws such as driving to the airport and waiting outside etc. Please provide a point by point explanation rather than throwing the rule book at us (literally).

OK I thought people could read and understand themselves. On the airport convenience charges. This is what is charged by Meru.
Airport convenience charge Rs.60/- for Domestic Terminal & Rs.80/- for International terminal is applicable for the pick-up from respective Airport Terminal.
Toll and parking charges will be extra as applicable.
Effective from 1st October 2014, as per the Finance Bill passed by the Government of India in July 2014, Service tax of 4.94% will be levied on all Taxi Fares and Service Tax of 12.36% will continue to be applicable on Convenience Charges / Airport Parking Charges..
Is Uber charging this? They park outside the airport. You can go and check yourselves if in doubt.

On point to point cab permits. This is the point made by Delhi Transport commissioner not me.
http://articles.economictimes.indiat...heme-customers
"The services of Uber have been blacklisted. We have just issued an order saying Uber's activities stand banned in Delhi," Special Commissioner of Delhi Transport Department, Satish Mathur has told ET. He added that Uber is "misleading customers" by offering them Taxis with All-India permits that cannot ply in Delhi from point-to-point ferrying customers. "In this rape case, the victim was provided a All India Permit Taxi which is not allowed to ferry customers point-to-point in the National capital".

[srameshdelhi]

Originally Posted by Axe77

1.
In all of this you still haven't pointed out one thing with any valid or rational basis - what legal ground is there at all to ban the service. As mentioned in my previous post - I don't doubt that it may well be the right time to introduce some additional guidelines to regulate such platforms and services with a balanced perspective in mind for basic safeguards. Even if that has to be considered it may be a fair point - why the instant reaction must be to ban the service I don't understand.

The violation of MV Act is the reason for ban by Delhi Transport Authority. An advertisement in yesterday newspapers appeared on the same. Also a notification has been issued as below:

[zenren]

Originally Posted by Axe77

From a legal standpoint, if the vehicles in india are duly licensed to operate their vehicles in the manner customers are using them, then there is no legal basis to prevent a technology platform from connecting the service.

Since they are connecting the customers to the taxi drivers who are not authorized to provide that service in that area, Uber's role is similar to that of someone who is buying and selling stolen goods. In case an investigation happens, they cannot say that they are just middlemen and claim ignorance.

Since they are a connecting service, if they had a process model where they verified which vehicles under their list had permits in which areas and appropriately routed the calls, it might not become a non-compliance. However, if they are not doing this process and just believing what the driver claims as the allowed area for operation, they are going to be booked as an accomplice in the violation.

Originally Posted by Axe77

2. To my knowledge (but I've not researched this) without an All India Permit (AIP) you cannot service inter city travel, but with an AIP you can service intra city as well as inter city. For instance if I book a car from Orix with an All India Permit, it can serve me throughout the day within Mumbai as well as take me to Pune and back for my work. The same goes with numerous other cab companies who we have corporate tie ups with. They give us cars for the entire day both for within the city as well as outside using their AIPs.
Again, I reserve final opinion on this in the absence of specific research but that is my broad understanding. Happy to be corrected with something that has specific backing.

Based on what I know, this "All India Permit" means the taxi can be driven anywhere in India as a hired vehicle. They would have a permit for their home location from where they can pick up passengers and get hired. However, that doesn't mean he can pickup a passenger from anywhere in India.

In the example you quoted, you took the cab from Mumbai which might have the permit to get hired at the area that includes the Orix office. In such a case, you can take it to Kashmir up north and then to Kanyakumari down south and then get back to Mumbai. There is no violation there. However, if you stopped your journey in Delhi and this cab driver starts picking up passengers in Delhi, then it becomes a violation. He should drive back alone to Mumbai (home location) if your journey ends in Delhi.

I've seen this similar issue with autos and taxis in the past when I've tried to hire them to go to railway station that I had to pay return fare since their permit didn't allow them to pickup passengers from railway station and hence had to comeback empty till half way mark, after which their permit area starts. There would be other auto-drivers who would catch him in case he tries to pick up someone without a permit.

In this case, I'm assuming that to operate anywhere in NCR, a taxi driver should have the permit for all regions within Delhi, Noida and Gurgaon; not just any one sub-region within one of the 3 areas. I'm not saying that every cab in the Uber network is plying without a permit. It is just that Uber is becoming an accomplice in the crime of depriving government from getting the permit fees that should otherwise have been paid to the transport department.

Originally Posted by xingamazon

OK all the Govt can ban Uber I do not have issue with this, it is an insane knee jerk reaction nevertheless.
But I am still finding answer for questions:
- If action is because for not performing background check:
Then let govt show that they have recruited all TTR, Bus drivers, conductors by performing Background check. Else will they stop the Govt Bus and trains?
- If the action is on Uber launch immediate investigation into other providers and see if they are flouting any norms. And not take action on Uber till then.

Originally Posted by Axe77

In all of this you still haven't pointed out one thing with any valid or rational basis - what legal ground is there at all to ban the service. As mentioned in my previous post - I don't doubt that it may well be the right time to introduce some additional guidelines to regulate such platforms and services with a balanced perspective in mind for basic safeguards. Even if that has to be considered it may be a fair point - why the instant reaction must be to ban the service I don't understand.

The ban is because of the way Uber operates and has nothing to do with the incident in Delhi from a legal standpoint. It so happened that an immediate investigation into the policies and practices by Uber was triggered by the Delhi incident but the ban is because the transport department has found that Uber is not complying with the legal requirements currently in place. I agree that it could be outdated but in any case, that is no excuse for Uber or anyone else to violate it. Otherwise, Uber would have already been in court asking for removal of this ban or at least a stay.

If you see my earlier post with link to the New York Times article, the ban in most other countries are due to the same reason - their drivers operating without the proper permits.

[i10]

Strange how the ban is being looked into out of context. As many have already pointed out, the rape has nothing to do with the ban. That incident resulted in our lazy departments waking up to realize that Uber, Ola, TaxiForSure and other related 'technology' companies are offering taxi services flouting the required norms. What's so difficult to understand in this?

[Axe77]

Originally Posted by poloman

Giving out car for entire day is different from point to point cab service. This is against Indian laws.
You can read yourselves and conclude how many laws Uber is following how many they are breaking.
http://www.delhi.gov.in/DoIT/DoIT_Transport/trrs31.pdf
Edit: The link is already posted. Still this answers most of the questions raised here.
This reads
The radio taxi licensee shall be responsible for quality of drivers, their police
verification, employer control and supervision of drivers, employee behavior etc. The
employers shall also ensure that the drivers are totally safe, reliable and trustworthy.

Fair enough. I haven't gone into great detail into the regulations and their scope or how they've defined "radio cab" but on the face of it, just by looking into the spirit of the regulation they are in an arguably grey area on the rules in question.

For the government they can argue that they shadow a radio cab like service and therefore should be licensed as such while they might try to contend that the individual drivers are actually licensed already under the MVA and therefore dual regulation or compliance may not be required.

But seems then that is an issue ripe for some litigation.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Uber is not your traditional taxi service company. It only connects drivers to passengers via an app.

Well, the drivers Uber is connecting with customers, don't have permit to run taxi in the jurisdiction of that city.
Either Uber has to get the license or lobby to get the licence-raj abolished. Being backed by well endowed investors (like Google, et al), they can afford to so and everyone will benefit.

Originally Posted by akhil_007

Link to Singapore Uber News Article: Uber SG

Singapore is a highly regulated and controlled market. When faced with services like Uber, Singapore Govt developed their own taxi hailing app !

[zenren]

Originally Posted by Axe77

Fair enough. I haven't gone into great detail into the regulations and their scope or how they've defined "radio cab" but on the face of it, just by looking into the spirit of the regulation they are in an arguably grey area on the rules in question.

For the government they can argue that they shadow a radio cab like service and therefore should be licensed as such while they might try to contend that the individual drivers are actually licensed already under the MVA and therefore dual regulation or compliance may not be required.

But seems then that is an issue ripe for some litigation.

Issue here is that the entire payment is collected by the Uber via their payment gateway and not by the taxi driver who has the permit to provide the service. On what grounds can Uber collect the payment for a service provided by someone else who is not directly connected to them, since they now claim that they are just a technology company and not the service provider?

If the customer made the payment to the taxi driver and he in-turn paid Uber whatever fees they charge, it could be argued that Uber is just a service that the taxi driver is using and has got nothing to do with actual service offered by the taxi driver to the customer. In the current model, customer pays Uber and Uber gives the amount to the cab driver after deducting their charges.

[puchoo]

This does not solve anything in my opinion , the problem is larger , more deep-rooted and systematic and banning one company or for that matter 3 or 5 is not going to giving us the safety net that is needed with regard to such events taking place. The government wants to show that steps are being taken , fast – then maybe it has achieved that , but we will keep finding ourselves in this situation time and time again unless there is a solution at the root level to this.

Lets take a step back from Uber for a minute – are taxi’s the only place where such incidents have taken place , no , the entire public transportation system is a seeding ground for such events

1. Taxis’s – yes
2. Auto’s – Yes
3. Bus’s – Yes
4. Metro’s – Yes , enough incidents of molestation one keeps hearing about

So we do away with some taxi companies – we simply to shift to something which is potentially as viable a problem as Uber was , is that a solution? No….. and even a stronger no if I look at some of the other characteristics which we need to live with with regard to the above 4

1. Taxi’s – so we start using the Black and Yellow’s again? Old , dilapidated , unsafe machines – no seatblets , no airbags, god knows about nthe structural integrity , low in technology + such events can happen with these drivers as well

2. Bus’s – we know rapes’ have happened here and by their drivers , plus they are unsafe again from a larger public point of view – for either people inside them or outside them – no real safety measures , complete disregard for traffic rules , in cahoots with the police enough to keep breaking rules again and again.

3. Auto’s – similar story here , there is no safety in either using them as a medium of transport of from the perspective of women + as a breed it about trying to fleece anyone who gets into them.

Given that we might as well just stick with the metro , in cities where it’s not present need to use own cars or better yet lets just stay at home. I fail to see any silver lining or solution in this again – in fact – if anything Uber and many others atleast for the most part gave us comfortable cars , safe cars , well behaved drivers , a complete transparent fare structure so if I was to actually draw up a points table such taxi companies would emerge as the safer “overall” bet , so by doing what the government has done is to really start at possibly the more professional setup’s that we have available today – and that would be fine if it was done in conjunction with efforts for the others as well but it is not…

And what exactly is going to be done with respect to all the drivers who are capable or have committed such crimes in the past - yesterday they were with Meru , today they are with Uber and tomorrow they will be with you in the next taxi you take , or Auto you flag down........... they will simply jump ship and the problem stays

……. Auto’s and Buses are holy land given the lovely relationship they have with cops and the number of politicians that actually own these, let me see someone in the government initiating a complete suspension , and take over of vehicles not following rules here , unlikely.

But I am not blindly going to accept any defense for Uber either , I have seen one too many times that Indian management for such companies does not live upto the guidelines or practices that are being followed internationally , they (the Indian management) are on their own trip and save for behaving themsevles for a few times a year when people from HQ might be coming down they sail their own ship –so I would not be surprised to find more skeletons coming out of the close in the following days

Secondly their Terms and Conditions can be burnt away , it does not matter if one has listed in fine print or in bold that one is not responsible for the behavior of the driver – if Uber was willing to accept the positivist word of mouth , sentiment and consequently piggyback for further popularity on how a lot of their drivers behaved then then reverse applies as well and they need to accept the bad.

I liked the direction that Kiran Bedi was taking on the Newshour debate with Arnab on this issue a a few days ago when she started talking about the need for interdepartmental coordination and possibly creating a hub to control and oversee and align information to be able to tackle such stuff , have better understanding of the data flowing around and consequently insights and knowledge that can be derived from that - Arnab unfortunately cut her 20 seconds in given that for him TRP's come out troubling politicians and not listening to logic for the most part (Logic can be boring) ..

... this is where we need to head to to really be doing something substantial as a solution , look at the coordination and the data available in the US for example with the DMV being such an integral part of the law and enforcement machinery up-to the federal level. Data being shared extensively across departments , better profiling , more checks , more updates and insights....

Want to ban Uber ; fine... do it......... but 3/6/9 months down the line let us not be surprised to find another thread within this community talking of another incident again.

UPDATE

Here we go , exactly what i meant by systems needing to be fixed - Uber banned but the taxi's are still available for hire as i write this

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/wh...-lateststories

[sdp1975]

Here's the Uber agreement for drivers - I could not find a specific contract for India :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a4cdx1omgj...02014.pdf?dl=0

It does say that the driver is responsible for obtaining relevant licenses, permits etc.