In a landmark ruling, the Karnataka High Court has directed ANI Technologies, the parent company of Ola Cabs, to pay Rs 5 lakh in compensation to a woman who allegedly faced sexual harassment by one of their drivers in 2019.
Karnataka HC orders Ola to compensate Sex Harassment victim
This decision, handed down by Justice M G S Kamal, marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over ride-hailing companies’ responsibilities towards passenger safety.
The court’s order goes beyond monetary compensation, mandating Ola’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to conduct a thorough inquiry into the incident within 90 days, adhering to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). This directive comes after Ola’s initial refusal to investigate the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction.
Here’s what happened:
Justice Kamal emphasized the importance of confidentiality, instructing all parties to comply with Section 16 of the POSH Act to protect the identities of those involved. The court also ordered ANI Technologies to cover the petitioner’s litigation expenses, amounting to Rs 50,000.
The case has broader implications for the ride-hailing industry in India. The petitioner not only sought redress from Ola but also urged the Ministry of Women and Child Development to ensure the company’s compliance with POSH guidelines. Furthermore, she called on the state to implement protective regulations for women and children using taxi services.
What Karnataka State Road Safety Authority do?
In a related development, the Karnataka State Road Safety Authority has been directed to expedite its proceedings regarding a notice issued to ANI Technologies, with a 90-day deadline. The state government faces a Rs 1 lakh penalty for its inadequate response to the petition.
The case has ignited a debate on the nature of ride-hailing services. While the petitioner’s counsel argued that Ola functions as a transport company and should be responsible for its drivers’ actions, Ola’s legal team contended that drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and thus the company should not be liable under labour laws.
This ruling sets a precedent for how ride-hailing companies might be held accountable for passenger safety in the future, potentially reshaping the industry’s operational model and legal responsibilities.
