Delhi man claims drunk Rapido driver took his phone, didn't let him get off cab
According to him, the ordeal lasted nearly 40 minutes before he diverted the cab to a police station. 'I got out and told them the driver was drunk. One guy literally said, 'to kyaa hua' (So, it's not a big deal). Then the HC asked me to report to the station. I did, but when I came outside, the personnel were nowhere to be found,' he recalled.The man further alleged that the driver chased him after the ride, demanding payment. 'I tried calling Rapido support. They didn't answer for an hour. The dude had the audacity to chase me, saying I didn't pay. When I confronted him, saying he was drunk, he said, 'haan bhai pii h subh but nashe nhi h,'' the man wrote.The passenger also shared screenshots of his chat with Rapido's customer support. In response, Rapido stated, 'At Rapido, we prioritise delivering excellent customer service, and the captain's behaviour is unacceptable. We have issued a final warning and will closely monitor him. Any further misconduct will result in strict action, including possible termination.'Take a look at the post here: Social media users slammed the platform's 'poor' support. 'Customer care of almost ALL companies sucks these days. Most of them are with (1) Chat Bot / automated response (2) people with zero brains who don't apply their mind while responding,' a user said.Another user shared, 'Rapido customer care is really bad. I had a similar incident when the driver cancelled the ride after being rude, and their support didn't even connect me to an executive.'One of the users recounted a frightening ride: 'I was travelling late at night. The driver drove very rashly, over 100 kmph, and I was scared for my life. After reaching, he asked for extra money. I paid because I didn't want to argue. Rapido only gave me credits for the extra money I paid. I don't think they took action against the driver. Such a terrible company,' they said. advertisementOthers pointed out discrepancies in vehicle details on the app. 'Multiple experiences where the ride was safe, but the vehicle number was different from what was shown on the app,' a user added.Rapido has yet to release an official statement regarding the viral complaint.- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Udaipur Files': SC declines to extend stay on release, says those against it can approach Delhi HC
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to extend the stay on release of the film Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder and told those objecting to it to approach the Delhi High Court for any further relief. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for those opposing its release, that they can approach the high court if they want to challenge the order by the expert committee set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to review the certificate granted to the movie by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The committee, set up following an order of the Delhi High Court, had recommended allowing the release subject to certain changes, including a new disclaimer. While Sibal was appearing for Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, Guruswamy was appearing for Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. 'We have not touched the merits…We will pass an order asking the high court to take it up on Monday…Whatever arguments you have to make, go to high court,' the bench said. As the counsel for those objecting to the release sought a stay in the meanwhile, Justice Kant said, 'meanwhile nothing.' Appearing for the filmmakers, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia opposed the request for extending the stay ordered by the high court. 'What is happening is very peculiar. This is my SLP [special leave petition] challenging the stay. Can they ask for stay in my SLP when they have a legal remedy before the HC?' Bhatia asked. The court pointed out that it had not granted any stay. Sibal said, 'I am not disputing that. In any case he can't screen the movie after tomorrow. You have to get 1,800 cinema halls.' Another counsel urged the bench, 'Your Lordships need only say HC will hear it on Monday. Meanwhile, the movie will not be screened, that is all.' The bench, however, did not agree. Bhatia referred to the objections raised in the past to the release of the film, Kerala Story, and the Supreme Court subsequently allowing its release. 'Every time the SC has allowed release. Let them go to HC. The HC will give them a detailed hearing. If there is a case made out for a stay, the HC will grant them. Why should this court, where I am the aggrieved party, pass an interim order stopping the release of the movie?' he said. Bhatia added, 'All preparations at my end are being done. I have lost 12 days already. I have abided by every instruction…Now today they couldn't make out a case. The revisional authority has passed an order. It would not be appropriate for Your Lordships to grant relief to them at this juncture.' Pointing out that around 1,200 screens had been blocked to screen the film, Bhatia said, 'And what are we encouraging Your Lordship? Is that question not relevant? Any person…comes forward, says I am aggrieved, my feelings are hurt. Can there be a …movie which will not hurt the sentiments of anyone? And then there are orders passed by the HC. A special screening was done for them. 55 plus 6 plus disclaimer edited by them…Now any further stay would be unfair.' The CBFC had ordered 55 cuts and the committee constituted by the Centre had recommended six further changes in addition to a new disclaimer. A counsel backing demands for its release said that no one was vilified even when films like Kashmir Files were released. 'The argument is this film will vilify the community and jeopardise the social fabric of the country. Earlier also similar arguments were made…Did any incident happen after the Kashmir Files? Was any Muslim targeted? Was the community vilified? Were even Kashmiri Muslims targeted?' he submitted. 'Madani should understand that the social fabric of the country was not harmed even after Pahalgam. It was not harmed after 26/11, or after the actual incident of Udaipur, or after Kashmir Files, or after Kerala Story. If it was harmed, it should be part of their petition. It is not. Their vilification theory and hate story is a figment of imagination. They are making a mountain out of a molehill….They want us to believe Udaipur Files is more profound than Pahalgam, Pulwama…,' he added. Bhatia questioned Madani's credentials saying he has three FIRs registered against him for provocative speech. 'They want to act as super censor. Can this be allowed in a country like ours?' he asked. Justice Kant said, 'Today, only short question here is once you withdraw your petition, should there be a condition from this court (to not screen) for 2 days, 3 days…?' Sibal said that all cases cited by the film makers are different from this 'for the simple reason that this movie has been seen while others were not seen. Therefore I am challenging the content which could not be done in those cases.' The high court had allowed a special screening and asked those objecting to watch it before it decided their plea for stay of release. Sibal argued that his case is also covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the Amish Devgan case. But Justice Bagchi said, 'In that respect, we will apply the Wednesbury principle. Whenever an expert body takes a decision, courts are generally deferential. It is not that judicial review is completely obviated. If the finding is perverse or completely contrary to the established principles, fundamental principles, courts will interfere. But nonetheless, we won't put the test of proportionality vis a vis the hands of the expert body.' Sibal said 'They have a CBFC certificate. The presumption is in their favour. But I have a right to challenge it.' 'You have (already) challenged it,' said Justice Bagchi. Sibal said, 'If they make a statement that it is not being released till Monday, Your Lordships may fix it for Monday (before the HC).' Justice Kant, however, said, 'No, how can we compel them to make a statement!' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
NDTV
29 minutes ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Directs Delhi High Court To Hear Pleas Against 'Udaipur Files' Release
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Delhi High Court to hear on July 28 the pleas challenging the Centre's nod to release "Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder." A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the filmmakers appeal against the high court order staying the release was infructuous as they accepted the July 21 order of the Centre clearing the release of the film subject to six cuts in its scenes and modifications in the disclaimer. The bench said it has not expressed any opinion on merit and the high court can adjudicate the issue of stay of release of film. It asked Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohd Javed, who is an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, to move the high court against the Centre's decision. The high court on July 10 stayed the film's release on a Madani's plea, invoking powers of the Central Government under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, till the representation is decided by the Central Government, for which the high court granted one week time. The filmmakers claimed to have received a Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate with the board suggesting 55 cuts and the film was due to be released on July 11. Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming that the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed. The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under IPC. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
RCB's Yash Dayal in more trouble, case registered under POCSO Act for alleged rape of minor: Report
Royal Challengers Bengaluru ( RCB ) pacer Yash Dayal finds himself in more trouble as a second FIR has been filed against the cricketer, TOI reported. The latest FIR alleges that the Uttar Pradesh-based player sexually assaulted a 17-year-old from Jaipur in 2023. This comes only weeks after a rape complaint was filed against him in UP's Ghaziabad by a woman who accused him of "exploiting" her. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Healthcare Digital Marketing Finance Data Science MCA Artificial Intelligence Others healthcare CXO Technology others Management Product Management Operations Management MBA Design Thinking Public Policy Leadership Data Analytics Project Management PGDM Data Science Skills you'll gain: Financial Analysis in Healthcare Financial Management & Investing Strategic Management in Healthcare Process Design & Analysis Duration: 12 Weeks Indian School of Business Certificate Program in Healthcare Management Starts on Jun 13, 2024 Get Details SHO Anil Kumar Jaiman of Sanganer Sadar police station confirmed the cricketer's identity based on the FIR registered on Wednesday under Section 64 of the new penal code BNS, which mandates a minimum jail term of 10 years, and relevant sections of the POCSO Act, the TOI report stated. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 Most Beautiful Women in the World Undo The complaint alleges that Dayal raped the then 17-year-old girl first in 2023 and once again in April this year in a hotel in Jaipur. "It is alleged that around two years ago, when the complainant was a minor, he raped her on multiple occasions after offering to help build her cricket career ," Jaiman told TOI. Live Events "This year, he contacted her again when he was in Jaipur on IPL duty, called her to his hotel and allegedly raped her there," he added. A case was registered immediately after the victim chose to report the multiple instances of alleged sexual assault . Investigators are working on the case, including steps to record her detailed statement, he said. The Allahabad High Court stayed Dayal's arrest in the Ghaziabad case on July 15, saying no coercive action should be taken against him till the next hearing. The FIR in that case was been filed on July 6 at Indirapuram police station, based on a complaint by the survivor to UP CM Yogi Adityanath through the state's integrated grievance redress system.
