The online car -linked operation was fined, and the court sentenced "Cao Cao to Travel" for full compensation!

After receiving the order from the platform to the platform, the driver sent passengers to Universal Studios encountered traffic law enforcement. The vehicle was fined more than 10,000 yuan for the vehicle without a network car transportation certificate. Afterwards, the driver Mr. Zheng sued Cao Cao's travel app. On June 21, the Beijing Chaoyang Court made a first trial. The court trial believes that Cao Cao's travel operators have an obligation to review, and the dispatch behavior belongs to the improper performance of the contract, and the full compensation of Mr. Zheng has paid a fine.

On February 23 this year, Mr. Zheng, a driver of the online car, received orders from Cao Cao's travel app. After driving the passenger to Beijing Universal Studios, he was inspected by law enforcement officers when he went to the Universal Studios. Because the vehicle did not obtain the "Online Reservation Taxi Transport Permit", Mr. Zheng was punished by the Tongzhou Communications Bureau to confiscate illegal income and fined 10,000 yuan.

After Mr. Zheng paid the fine, he told the operator of Cao Cao's travel app to the court. Mr. Zheng believes that because the defendant's company is not compliant, he dispatches his bill to cause his economic losses, so he is required to bear a fine.

However, the platform operator believes that Cao Cao's travel platform is not owned by the vehicle. During the registration, the driver needs to check the agreement to make a commitment to meet the relevant requirements. The platform has fulfilled the prompt obligation, and Mr. Zheng should take responsibility by himself.

During the trial, Mr. Zheng said that he was registered by the defendant's franchisee and did not see the defendant's prompt. When registering the car, he had handed all the materials to the defendant's franchisee, and he did not know that he would need a transportation certificate. Mr. Zheng established a contract relationship with the defendant's company in December 2021. He said that he didn't know that he had to transport a transportation certificate until he was punished.

The court trial believes that no matter what the plaintiff submits the information through, the final review rights still belong to the online car rental platform, so it cannot be exempted from the defendant's review obligations. The defendant, as the formula party of the format contract, did not adopt a reasonable way to remind the plaintiff to engage in the qualifications required to engage in online cars. The relevant terms cannot be exempt.

In addition, the online car rental platform will charge a certain percentage of management fees from passenger payment. If the platform allows the platform to charge only fees, but does not bear the consequences of the driver and vehicle, it is obviously inconsistent with the rights and obligations.

Therefore, the court believes that the defendant, as the platform operator, still dispatched to the plaintiff without discovering the information submitted by the plaintiff without discovery the information of the plaintiff. It belongs to the improper performance of the contract and should be compensated to the plaintiff's losses. Based on this, the court ruled that the defendant had all compensated Mr. Zheng's fines.

Source: Beijing Daily

- END -