Case Title: Govt of NCT of Delhi And Ors. v. Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. SLP(C) No. 12000/2023
Summary
The Supreme Court dissent regarding the insurance coverage stipulated in the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 for both drivers and pillion commuters. The Delhi High Court’s order permitting bike-taxi aggregators Rapido and Uber to operate bike-taxis in Delhi without aggregator licenses until the Delhi Government notifies a final policy on the matter was challenged. Uber’s attorney,
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, informed the Bench that insurance coverage is provided for chauffeurs and that Uber merely functions as an aggregator. Justice Bindal, however, argued that the Central Government Guidelines 2020 provide comprehensive coverage of the rights of both riders and drivers. The Supreme Court refrained from providing any additional commentary on the matter of insurance coverage due to the absence of detailed arguments presented on the subject.
About the case
On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed its dissent regarding the insurance coverage stipulated in the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 for both drivers and pillion commuters. Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal of the Bench, while hearing a petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s order permitting bike-taxi aggregators Rapido and Uber to operate bike-taxis in Delhi without aggregator licenses until the Delhi Government notifies a final policy on the matter, inquired about the insurance coverage for the driver and pillion rider.
Formerly, while representing Uber, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul informed the Bench that insurance coverage is provided for chauffeurs and that Uber merely functions as an aggregator. On Monday, the Bench inquired once more regarding the insurance coverage from the attorneys representing the aggregators. The attorney representing Rapido stated, “The fare for the rider and pillion rider is 5 lakh Indian Rupees.” Kaul apprised the Bench that Uber charges a driver an additional INR 5 lakhs. Justice Bindal, dissatisfied with the insurance coverage, remarked, “That is nothing.” “The Central Government Guidelines 2020 provide comprehensive coverage of the rights of both riders and drivers,” Kaul argued. Justice Bose expressed concern that the sum of 5 lakh Indian Rupees might not be adequate. “Mr. (Sanjay) Jain (ASG), we must try it somewhere with a limit of INR 5 lakh. “Presumably, it is improper and contrary to the public interest.”
“In addition, how can compensation be restricted to 5 lakh INR?” asked Justice Bindal. Kaul clarified, “Uber provides this.” “No, this is a directive from the Central Government,” Justice Bindal replied. He apprised the Senior Counsel that in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020, the Central Government is also considering providing INR 5 lakhs in insurance coverage. The pertinent provisions of the 2020 Guidelines are as follows: (a) Clause 7(2) [Compliance concerning drivers] – Guaranteeing that every driver affiliated with the aggregator has health insurance coverage amounting to a minimum of Rs. 5 lakhs, commencing in the base year 2020-21 and escalating by 5% annually thereafter. (b) Clause 7(2) [Compliance concerning drivers] – Ensuring that every driver affiliated with the aggregator carries a term insurance policy for a minimum of Rs. 10 lakhs, commencing in 2020-21 and escalating by 5% annually thereafter. Clause 15(2)(b) [Aggregators’ aggregation of non-transport vehicles] – A minimum of Rs. 5 lakhs in insurance coverage shall be obtained for ride-sharers in the vehicle, excluding the proprietor or driver who is integrated with the Aggregator, for the vehicle incorporated pursuant to this clause 15.
On behalf of Uber, Kaul stated that if the insurance coverage requires any enhancements, that could be investigated. He emphasized, nevertheless, that this does not constitute the central issue in the current proceedings before the Court. The Bench refrained from providing any additional commentary on the matter of insurance coverage due to the absence of detailed arguments presented on the subject.
