The Amritsar District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has directed app-based delivery platform Swiggy to pay over Rs 5,000 in payout for allegedly not delivering a Veg Mezze Platter to a woman who placed the order for two items and paid for only one in February 2025.
A bench of Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (president) and Mandeep Kaur (member) was hearing a complaint filed by a woman who had ordered the dishes from the company but did not receive a refund for the dish despite persistent follow-ups.
“The material placed on record clearly shows that despite acknowledging the complainant’s grievance and promising a refund, the OP (Swiggy) failed to refund the amount within a reasonable period. Such conduct amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,” the June 5 order read.
No refund
- The woman placed an order through the Swiggy app on February 5, 2025, for a Veg Mezze Platter priced at Rs 590 and a Chicken Tikka Shawarma priced at Rs 330.
- When the woman received the delivery, he found that the Veg Mezze Platter was missing from the order.
- The woman, worried about the incomplete delivery, immediately contacted the company’s customer service to report the issue and seek a resolution.
- After the complaint, the company’s customer service representative acknowledged the missing item and assured the woman that a refund of Rs 590 would be processed within 24 hours.
- The woman was led to believe that the issue had been resolved, but despite the repeated follow-ups, the complainant had not received the refund in her account.
- Further, the Swiggy app did not show any active refund status, and there was no clear communication from the company regarding the refund process.
- The woman made numerous attempts to contact Swiggy’s customer service daily since the issue but was no resolution or satisfactory response.
‘Reasonable period’
The Amritsar district consumer commission was of the view that if the company, being the intermediary, received payment for the delivery of the item and the item was not delivered, even taking payment, in such cases, the intermediary must be liable for its own acts or omissions, even though it was not the actual seller.
It was further observed that no evidence had been produced by the company to prove that any specific communication was sent to the woman, wanting the submission of bank details, or that the woman intentionally failed to comply with such a requirement.
According to the commission, it was clear from the facts and evidence that, despite acknowledging the woman’s grievance and promising a refund, the company failed to refund the amount within a reasonable period, and such conduct amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as given under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The commission ordered the company to refund the amount of Rs 590, being the price of the undelivered Veg Mezze Platter, along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the amount is refunded.
Story continues below this ad
The company was also directed to pay compensation of Rs 5,000 for causing mental harassment as well as inconvenience to the woman.
‘False and frivolous’
Advocate Geetinder Singh, appearing on behalf of the company, contended that the complaint was a gross abuse of the process of law and that the same is based on false, frivolous, and baseless allegations against the company without evidence and does not have any merit.
It was urged by the counsel that the woman, by using the Swiggy app, agreed to the terms and conditions of the company, according to which the company had no active part or responsibility in ensuring the quality or quantity of the products listed on the platform, and that the transaction of buying the items is purely between the Buyer and the Merchant.
The counsel argued that the terms and conditions of the company made it clear that its role in a transaction was limited to purely that of an intermediary and that the company shall have no liability in any transaction entered into between the buyer and the seller.
Story continues below this ad
It was further contended that no substantial harm or damage resulted from the services offered by the company and that it never refused assistance to the woman at any stage. It was also urged that the company’s customer support team was actively engaged and responded promptly to the woman’s concerns through the in-app support system.
According to the counsel, the delay in processing the refund was only because of the absence of the necessary bank account or payment details required to complete the transaction.
It was also urged that it became very clear from the facts that there was no evidence to support the claim of mental agony endured by the woman, nor was there any evidence to prove the allegation of mental anguish.
It was also mentioned that the business of the company fell within the definition of an “intermediary” under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the company was also protected under Section 79 (exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Story continues below this ad
Significance
The ruling establishes the obligation of the companies to provide prompt refund and other essential services especially in the cases of food and other edibles, and the fact that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored causing them unnecessary inconvenience.
Consumers must also pursue their complaints in consumer commissions so that the companies and service providers at fault are heldaccountablefor their actions.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Punjab helpline:0800-22577) or call the National Consumer Helpline on 1915 for assistance.
