Sina science and technology news on the morning of June 14th, Haidian court issued a case report, said that dripper driver, Mr. Qi said that by drop trip (express) software received a single penalty of 11000 yuan, at the drop operator Beijing small orange Technology Co., Ltd. was told that the vehicle type and registered vehicles are not incompatible with the registered vehicles, Mr. Qi took the small orange company to court and demanded that the company pay 11000 yuan for the operation and 1000 yuan for the time it takes to get the car. A few days ago, the Haidian court accepted the case.
The plaintiff, Mr. Qi, claimed that in 2015, it was registered by a mobile phone by a mobile phone and was registered as the Beijing brand, the vehicle model was the Great Wall C30, but the only the Great Wall C50 option was in the vehicle type when the registration was submitted, so the Great Wall C50 was selected and the vehicle driving photo, the driving license photo and the person car photo were submitted. After that, they passed the audit and began to work in dripping operation. In March 2, 2018, Mr. Qi drove the car through a drop trip (express) software, and the vehicle was detained by the staff of the Beijing traffic law enforcement corps when the passengers were driving to the Beijing Railway Station. Mr. Qi was sentenced to 11000 yuan in March 5th by calling for the follow-up handling of the car, and under the guidance of the customer service personnel.
In March 10th, Mr. Qi was prompted by small orange Company text message to Chaoyang District South Fourth Ring Road for fines reimbursement. As a result, the on-site staff of small orange company told Mr. Qi that the vehicle model was not in conformity with the registered vehicle and refused to reimburse the reimbursement fines. Mr. Qi repeatedly called the customer service to reflect the situation and asked for reimbursement of the fine, all of which were refused.
The plaintiff, Mr. Qi, said that when the vehicle was registered, the photos of the driving license, driving license and human car had been uploaded to the drop trip (express) software and were examined and approved, and no vehicles were replaced when the vehicle was buckled. Why do small orange companies pass the initial audit? Let oneself engage in dripping (express) work when the vehicle does not meet the requirements? Why did I tell myself that I could not reimburse the penalty due to the discrepancy in the vehicle type when I was reimbursed for the fine? Mr. Qi believes that small orange company has deliberately relaxed the audit conditions in the process of vehicle audit in order to get more Beijing license vehicles to occupy Beijing rental market and create more value for its company, but the vehicles are directly responsible for the car owners to take responsibility for the vehicles after they have been buckled, traffic accidents and so on. It feels unfair. Therefore, it appeals to the court.
At present, the case is in the process of further trial.
Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens