A customer filed a consumer complaint after his order of Nutty Death by Chocolate ice cream from a ‘Cream Stone Ice Cream’ outlet in Bangalore was not delivered.
A Consumer Court in Bengaluru recently directed Swiggy to pay ₹3,000 as compensation, apart from ₹2,000 as litigation costs, to a customer for not delivering an ice cream ordered using the food delivery app in 2023.
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission also directed the platform, owned by Bundl Technologies, to refund the amount of ₹187 paid by the customer while ordering the ice cream.
“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 said acts of the OP amounts to deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice,” the consumer forum ruled.
On January 26 last year, the customer placed on order via Swiggy for ‘Nutty Death by Chocolate’ ice cream from the ‘Cream Stone Ice Cream’ restaurant.
Although the ice cream was not delivered, the status on the Swiggy app was shown as ‘delivered’ after a delivery agent picked up the delivery.
Swiggy failed to refund the order amount to the customer, prompting him to approach the consumer forum for relief.
Before the forum, Swiggy countered that it was only an intermediary between the customer and third-party restaurants or merchants and was protected from liability as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act.
Swiggy maintained that it could not be held liable for the alleged mistake of its delivery boy and that it was not in a position to check if the order was delivered, particularly when it was marked as delivered on the app.
While analysing the case, the bench comprising President Vijaykumar M Pawale, V Anuradha and Renukadevi Deshpande noted that Swiggy had failed to respond to a legal notice issued by the customer for a refund.
It proceeded to reject Swiggy’s contention that it was protected from liability as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act and observed that the exemption was limited to the dissemination of information and not applicable to the sale of goods and services.