Food delivery platform Swiggy has been ordered to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 as litigation costs to a customer who sued the company for not delivering an ice cream ordered through the app.
Observing that there was a “deficiency of service” and “unfair trade practice”, a Consumer Court in Bengaluru also directed Swiggy to refund the amount of the ice cream, Rs 187, to the customer, as reported by Bar and Bench.
The customer approached the Consumer Commission after Swiggy failed to deliver the ‘Nutty Death by Chocolate’ ice cream she ordered in January 2023.
According to the complaint, a delivery agent picked up the order from the ice cream shop, but it was not delivered to her, although the status on the app showed it as ‘delivered.’
She raised the matter with Swiggy, but the firm did not provide a refund for the order. Following this, she approached the consumer court.
However, Swiggy claimed that it was just an intermediary between the customer and the restaurants and could not be held liable for the alleged mistake of its delivery agent. The company stated it was unable to verify if the order was delivered when it was marked as delivered on the app.
However, the court rejected these claims, as well as Swiggy’s contention that it was protected from liability under the provisions of the Information Technology Act.
“We are of the considered view that the complainant has proved that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP [Opposite party/Swiggy) since OP has not refunded the amount paid by the complainant though the ordered product has not been delivered to the complainant,” the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission said.
The commission noted, “The said acts of the OP [Swiggy] amounts to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice”.
Stating that the deficiency of service and unfair trade practices were proven, the court directed Swiggy to refund Rs 187 and pay Rs 3,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 as litigation costs.
The complainant claimed Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 7,500 as litigation expenses, but the court found it to be exorbitant.