Why is UBER liable for its driver’s actions?

The case in the Indian context is no less different for the reputation of ride-hailing platforms
like Uber. These platforms are operating under such a regulatory grey area that they easily
evade liability for the acts of drivers. There is sufficient Criminal liability in this case for
UBER as a corporation is considered as a separate legal entity, but a corporation is an entity,
something that exists only through its employees. A corporation can be vicariously liable for
the criminal liability of its employees. If a criminal act by the employee is within the “scope
of employment” and as long as and their conduct benefits the corporation it would be held
liable. Under the case of Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, the
SC did not go by the strict penal provisions and held that a corporation can be held liable
regardless of the mandatory punishment as under the statue.
What is the current situation in the Indian context?
Judiciary in India is yet to decide about this issue, they have taken recommendations from the
countries like the UK, the US, it’s up to the judiciary which recommendations they opt to
deal with this issue in India. It is necessary to have some regulatory framework for the
companies running these services. Making app-based cab service companies accountable for
offences committed by their drivers will help reduce these offences.
But as per UBER policy for the negligence of the incidents pertaining to accidents or any act
by the UBER driver it may not be held liable. Uber itself does not provide any transportation
services and Uber is not a transportation carrier. Uber only acts as an intermediary between
the customer and the transportation provider.