Sihai network

The driver sued didi for its title and ordered didi company to compensate the driver 10000 yuan

[driver suing didi title] after seeing the advertisement of "you can run didi without a car", master Lin in Shenzhen, Guangdong signed a contract to become a didi driver at the event held by didi Travel Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as didi company), signed a contract and agreement with a company, and rented a car to drive didi online car Hailing.

After more than three months of online car hailing, master Lin's online car Hailing account was suddenly banned by didi company. A company also collected the car and asked him to pay liquidated damages. On September 13, 2018, master Lin sued didi company and a company to the court.

The court of first instance ordered master Lin to terminate the agreement with a company, and a company returned more than 10000 yuan of master Lin's deposit. Master Lin appealed against the judgment. In the second instance, master Lin reached a mediation with a company. Recently, the Shenzhen intermediate people's court ordered to revoke the first instance judgment, and didi company compensated master Lin for the loss of 10000 yuan.

Didi driver was banned after signing the contract

According to the case data, the court of first instance found that on March 16, 2018, master Lin signed a financial leasing contract with a company, which agreed that master Lin rented a car for online car Hailing operation for 36 months, with a down payment of RMB 1, a monthly rent of RMB 5092, and a deposit of RMB 20000 to a company.

The contract also mentioned that the deposit will be returned within 3 working days after deducting master Lin's arrears at the expiration of the lease; If master Lin fails to pay the monthly rent and other expenses payable as agreed in the contract, the company has the right to terminate the contract in advance, control and recover the vehicle and require master Lin to pay liquidated damages.

On the same day, master Lin also signed a consulting service agreement with a company, which agreed that a company would provide some free services for online car Hailing transportation through didi platform for 24 months.

On March 23, 2018, Didi company opened an online car Hailing account for master Lin. Master Lin drove a car rented from a company and became an online car Hailing driver through didi platform.

On July 9, 2018, Didi company banned master Lin's online car Hailing account for failing to provide relevant materials as required. After the account was closed, master Lin failed to communicate with didi company about the unsealing. A company asked master Lin to bear the responsibility for arrears of rent and overdue liquidated damages after the account was closed.

On September 13, 2018, master Lin sued a company and didi company to the court, asking for the cancellation of the financial lease contract, the consulting service agreement, the return of the deposit, compensation for losses, etc.

In the first instance trial, master Lin and a company confirmed that master Lin had owed rent since August 2018, and a company forcibly recovered the vehicle involved on August 21, 2018.

The court of first instance held that the contractual relationship signed between master Lin and a company had been terminated, and a company should return master Lin's deposit of 20000 yuan. After deducting the rent in arrears and liquidated damages for overdue payment agreed to be deducted by master Lin, more than 10000 yuan should still be returned to master Lin.

The court of first instance did not support master Lin's claim that didi company and a company should compensate for the loss of income.

Didi in the second trial compensated 10000 yuan

Master Lin appealed to the Shenzhen intermediate people's court against the judgment of first instance, saying that the rent arrears and overdue breach of contract were caused by the title sealing behavior of didi company and should not be borne by him; Didi company's unreasonable suspension not only infringes the civil rights and interests of master Lin engaged in online car Hailing operation as an online car Hailing driver, but also infringes master Lin's right to labor and employment, and shall compensate for the losses.

Master Lin requested the court to revoke the judgment of first instance and change the judgment to didi company to compensate master Lin for his normal income from July 6, 2018 to the date of returning the car. The normal income is 625 yuan per day. It is calculated that until master Lin finds a job on February 13, 2019, a total of more than 130000 yuan.

According to the court trial data, the notarial certificate submitted by didi company shows that on July 31, 2018, the notarization downloaded and registered didi software, service standards, contractual records of liability for breach of contract and platform user rules. Didi company advocates that master Lin sign the above agreement with didi company by clicking consent when registering. Article 2.1 of Chapter II of the user rules stipulates that if the owner has a criminal record or meets the criminal standard, including traffic accident crime, dangerous driving crime, violent crime and other criminal acts, the service shall be permanently stopped. Master Lin confirmed that he had a credit card criminal record.

The court of second instance held that the notarization time of the platform user rules and express service cooperation agreement submitted by didi was after master Lin's registration, which could not fully prove that the version confirmed by clicking on master Lin's registration was the notarized version, which was not supported by the court.

In the Interim Measures for the administration of online taxi booking service, the conditions for online taxi drivers include no traffic accident crime, dangerous driving criminal record, no drug abuse record, no driving record after drinking and no violent criminal record. The court held that this did not extend to all those with criminal records who could not engage in online car Hailing services. Didi company cancelled master Lin's account without contract and legal basis, and should compensate for the corresponding losses.

Master Lin claimed that his loss was the normal income from the date of the seal to the date of returning the car. The court held that the daily income of 625 yuan claimed by him should also deduct the cost of oil and so on; After the title of didi company, master Lin should also actively look for new job opportunities to reduce the expansion of losses.

In view of the fact that master Lin leased vehicles and put them into operation based on his trust in didi company, the court decided that the loss of master Lin caused by the cancellation of didi company's account was 10000 yuan, and didi company should compensate.

In August 2019, Shenzhen intermediate people's court revoked the judgment of first instance, ordered didi company to compensate master Lin 10000 yuan, and rejected master Lin's other claims.