Consumer court orders Swiggy to pay Rs 3,000 for failing to deliver ice-cream worth Rs 137

Bengaluru: A consumer court in Bengaluru ordered food aggregator Swiggy to pay a compensation of Rs 3,000 for failing to deliver ice-cream worth Rs 137, and not refunding the total charge of Rs 187.

The Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission asked the food aggregator to pay a total of Rs 5,187 along with interest at 8% per annum until realisation. It said that Swiggy is liable to pay Rs 2,000 as litigation charges, along with Rs 3,000 in compensation and the product’s total price of Rs 187.

The complainant had ordered a 'nutty death by chocolate', a sundae worth Rs 137, from an outlet listed on the Swiggy app on January 26, 2023. A delivery fee of Rs 30 and a packing fee of Rs 20 were levied on the order.

The delivery executive picked up the order 34 minutes after it was placed, but he didn’t deliver it. The app displayed the item as ‘delivered’, despite the delivery guy failing to reach the location.

The complainant raised the issue via email and got confirmation that the product was not delivered. He sought a refund the next day, but didn’t receive it.

On January 31, the consumer sent Swiggy a legal notice, but did not receive a reply. He then took it up with the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

Swiggy contended that it cannot be held liable for mistakes committed by the delivery executive. They are mere "intermediaries", facilitating transactions and have no role in determining the product that is picked up and delivered in a packed condition.

Call records submitted

The food aggregator also noted that the delivery partner was unable to locate the complainant’s address and that his calls went unanswered.

However, the complainant submitted a CD of his call recording with the delivery partner when he was within a 200-metre distance of the delivery location, negating Swiggy’s claim.

The court quoted Section 79 of the IT Act, which says "exemption of liability of intermediary in certain cases”, to negate the "intermediary" term.

The court said: “The acts of the opposition party (Swiggy) amount to deficiency of service and also an unfair trade practice."