In a surprise move that has shocked many, the 25-year-old Indian woman who had sued multinational company Uber in January this year, has now voluntarily withdrawn the suit.
The unnamed passenger had accused one of the Uber’s cab drivers of raping her and subsequently sued the taxi company for not taking proper precautions regrading women safety and selection of drivers.
The passenger was an NRI who, back in December 2014, alleged that 32-year-old Shiv Kumar Yadav had raped her.
While no one knows the details as to why the case was pulled or how the case was settled, the speculations are rife while people still wait for any official statement either by the NRI woman or by Uber.
Lawyers representing the woman submitted in a US District Court that “Plaintiff Jane Doe hereby voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action against Defendant Uber Technologies with prejudice. Each side shall bear its own costs, expense expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
‘Jane Doe’ is the term used to name unidentified plaintiffs or accused.
Following the accusation, the Indian government had taken immediate action and banned Uber in Delhi for a brief period of time.
Since the ‘Nirbhaya Gangrape Case’ back in December 2012, Delhi has become infamous as the rape capital of India and strict measures have been taken to make the national capital safer.
The Nirbhaya case was also one of the reasons that the Uber case was so highly publicized, as it had again brought forward the hard reality as to how ugly and unsafe Delhi was.
Following the outcry in the NRI rape case, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick called the incident “horrific,” and had then stated:
“We will also partner closely with the groups who are leading the way on women’s safety here in New Delhi and around the country and invest in technology advances to help make New Delhi a safer city for women.”
After ban in Delhi that lasted just a few weeks, Uber service was reinstated in January this year. The company also added an SOS button to its app the following month, but despite this the passenger had still gone ahead and sued the company.
The woman had sought compensation for “physical and monetary” harm and the damage to her “professional and personal reputations”.