A customer from Uttarakhand sued eatery and food delivery platform for ₹505 pizza order. He won ₹10,520 payout over ‘3 inch’ issue. Learn more details here.
An Uttarakhand man, who had filed a case in consumer forum for ₹505 food order, won ₹10,520 payout over a mismatch in delivery. The customer had allegedly placed 10 inches pizza order as listed on the food delivery mobile application but instead received seven-inch pizza, Indian Express reported.
When the food delivery platform’s customer support chat was unable to address the issue and grant him a refund, he decided to escalate the matter further. The complainant reportedly approached multiple platforms for a resolution. He even filed complaints with the National Consumer Helpline (NCH), the CPGRAMS portal before he sent a formal legal notice. At last, he reached out to consumer commission for a resolution.
The commission, headed by President Gagan Kumar Gupta along with members Dr Amresh Rawat and Ranjana Goyal, observed the case was one of deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice as the customer received three inches smaller than promised.
Consumer forum penalizes eatery, food delivery platform over order mismatch
“The opposite parties are ordered to jointly and severally pay the complainant, within 45 days from the date of this order, a total sum of ₹10,520, which includes ₹505 towards the price of the pizza in question plus ₹15 delivery charges, ₹5,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment, and ₹5,000 as litigation expenses,” the order stated.
According to the complaint, the customer used online food delivery platform to order two pizzas worth ₹505. He received 7-inch pizza instead of 10-inch listed product. Although he raised the issue promptly but was denied a refund. Dissatisfied with mere acknowledgement of the size issue, he went ahead with his complaint.
Meanwhile, the e-commerce food delivery platform tried to distance itself from the case citing limited function and control over manufacturing, order preparation and packaging. It contended that it operates merely as an intermediary platform connecting users with third-party restaurants and argued that its function is just to deliver orders to their destination as per the provided description. Notably, the commission examined the evidence and affidavits submitted by the complainant and proceeded ex parte against the second opposite party (seller/eatery) for failing to file a response, the report said.
The commission ruled that the opposite parties committed a deficiency in service by failing to deliver the pizza as ordered after observing that the pizza was not delivered according to the placed order nor was a refund provided.
Further, the commission held the e-commerce platform also responsible for the error as it observed that the online app played an integral role in the service chain, from accepting the order and coordinating with the restaurant to executing the delivery.
