UNILATERAL ACTION OF UBER INDIA

UBER INDIA SENT AN EMAIL TODAY, AS BELOW
"Hey Sekhar, our terms are being updated with effect from 1st October 2019. Your continued use of the Uber app signifies your assent to be bound by the new terms and conditions.
CAN UBER UNILATERALLY DO THIS TYPE OF AMENDMENT TO THE TERMS? FURTHER THE NEW TERMS MANDATES AS BELOW. ARE THESE TWO- LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND 6. GOVERNING LAW; ARBITRATION LEGALLY TENABLE

1. UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, LOST DATA, PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE RELATED TO, IN CONNECTION WITH, OR OTHERWISE RESULTING FROM ANY USE OF THE SERVICES, EVEN IF UBER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, LIABILITY OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF: (i) YOUR USE OF OR RELIANCE ON THE SERVICES OR YOUR INABILITY TO ACCESS OR USE THE SERVICES; OR (ii) ANY TRANSACTION OR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND ANY THIRD PARTY PROVIDER, EVEN IF UBER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DELAY OR FAILURE IN PERFORMANCE RESULTING FROM CAUSES BEYOND UBER’S REASONABLE CONTROL.

2. GOVERNING LAW; ARBITRATION.

Except as otherwise set forth in these Terms, these Terms shall be exclusively governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India. Any dispute, conflict, claim or controversy arising out of or broadly in connection with or relating to the Services or these Terms, including those relating to its validity, its construction or its enforceability (any “Dispute”) shall be first mandatorily submitted to mediation proceedings in terms of the Indian law. If such Dispute has not been settled within sixty (60) days after a request for mediation has been submitted under the Indian laws, such Dispute can be referred to and shall be exclusively and finally resolved by arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”). The Dispute shall be resolved by one (1) arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the Act more  

View all 16 comments Below 16 comments
Has it been weighed by a competent body in Govt of India?It should have their concurrence. more  
A carrier is responsible for the safety and well being of the passenger. They can not shirk their responsibilities. more  
Dr. Iyer has a valid point, an app or facilitator should not claim immunity from service providers default. Had Uber considered their services as non-profit, the changes could be justified. What Uber has basically done here is they have given up on standard operating practices and opened the door for rogues & thugs. Lack of safety assurance by Uber would eventually, drive away the customers. Good for other cab drivers. Having said, India hai bhai sab chalta hai.... more  
Every person has to work as per rules of India and can not dictate his own term when it comes for general public issue. Any special condition put by Uber has to be taken back or Govt should not allow to function such companies in the interest of general indian public. more  
If you do not like the new terms you can uninstall the app and stop using Uber. The two conditions and the condition mentioned by Mr. Anil Kumar appear to be fairly reasonable. more  
Post a Comment

Related Posts

Share
Enter your email & mobile number and we will send you the instructions

Note - The email can sometime gets delivered to the spam folder, so the instruction will be send to your mobile as well

Please select a Circle that you want people to invite to.
Invite to
(Maximum 500 email ids allowed.)