The rivalry remains, Uber has allegedly accused Ola of creating about 90,000 fake accounts and causing the company severe loss of capital by cancelling and booking cabs. “ Large number of fake accounts are being created by Ola which are then used to make false bookings and cancellations using our application. This keeps our drivers busy and we have to bear the cancellation charges.” “ Over 405,649 fake bookings have been made between August and February 2016” , said Rajiv Nayyar counsel for Uber India. The fake accounts that were created were across India and made false bookings. The defense states something quite contrary to what Uber claimed, Uber was not paying for any cancellation charge as the customer would be charged if they don't cancel the booking in five minutes. Thus, the defendants felt Ubers plea to ask for Rs. 49.61 crores for revenue losses is not justifiable. Uber had claimed to pay over 5 lakhs due to the fake bookings, said Ola was “ squatting” on cabs.

Ola has absolutely denied of doing such a deed and instead supposes that Uber is charging them for this in retaliation of the case they had filed on the company for ignoring rules to stop using diesel cabs in Delhi. ” Defendants empathetically deny the allegations. Counsel for defendants states they have not done anything to interfere with plaintiff's business as alleged, or it's system by making false accounts, bookings or cancellations& hellip nor has any intentions of doing so.” In support to the defendants case, it is being said that Ubers case is based on assumptions.

The court said, “ Defendants, their agents and employees shall abide by their statement.” Also, asking them to file their written statement within 4 weeks. Uber too has to file its response during the same time and the next hearing is scheduled for September 14, 2016 by Justice Vipin Sanghai. Ola expressed that the charges were “ frivolous” . Yet another quotes states, “ It is not beyind our imagination that it is an effirt to divert attention from the current realities of the market where Uber has faced major setbacks including the recent incidents of vehicles being seized by the government authorities.” “ We stand by our contempt petition that Uber has added and plying new diesel vehicles within Delhi in willful and deliberate defiance of the local rules and regulations.” ANI Technologies Ltd, filed a contempt petition in the Delhi High Court that Uber has been buying new vehicles which used diesel as fuel, violating the Delhi High Court's order, 14^th October, 2015. Although, Uber said that it has been following with all the rules. Uber has not only faced monetary loss, it has lost 20,000 drivers and its brand name too. Reportedly, Ola employees have impersonated to be member of the Uber family and would send inappropriate texts to people.

OUR TAKE

As of now, we ourselves do not have a clear picture of who has done what and thus remain neutral on this case. Though, if the allegations that are being imposed on Ola are true strict actions must be taken against the brand so as to set an example for all. On the other hand, if Uber is simply retaliating towards Ola for the case they had filed or that their case is not supported by strong evidence, they must be given strict punishment for hampering with a brands prestige.