A Uttarakhand consumer commission has ordered a food delivery platform and a restaurant to jointly pay Rs 10,520 to a customer after he allegedly received a seven-inch pizza instead of the 10-inch pizza he had ordered.
A consumer commission in Uttarakhand has directed a food delivery platform and a restaurant to jointly pay Rs 10,520 to a customer for allegedly delivering a seven-inch pizza instead of the 10-inch pizza advertised on the app, according to an Indian Express report.
The commission, headed by President Gagan Kumar Gupta along with members Dr Amresh Rawat and Ranjana Goyal, said that providing a pizza three inches smaller than what was ordered amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The order issued by the commission reads: “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 Rs 10,520, which includes Rs 505 towards the price of the pizza in question plus Rs 15 delivery charges, Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment, and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses.”
What Was The Case?
According to Indian Express, the consumer said he ordered a 10-inch pizza worth Rs 505 through an online food delivery app. However, the pizza delivered to him was only seven inches in size. He immediately raised a complaint through the platform’s support chat, but despite receiving the wrong-sized pizza, his request for a refund was denied.
Disappointed with the response, the consumer approached the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) and the CPGRAMS portal and also sent a formal legal notice. After failing to obtain a refund, he filed a complaint before the consumer forum.
What Did The Food Delivery Platform Say?
As in several cases involving online delivery complaints, the food delivery platform argued that it was only a third party acting as an interface between restaurants and customers. The platform said it was not the manufacturer, order preparer, packager or seller of the food listed on its platform.
However, the commission held that the opposite parties were responsible for a deficiency in service as the pizza delivered to the customer did not match what he had ordered.
The commission therefore directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 520, covering the Rs 505 price of the pizza and Rs 15 delivery charges. They were also ordered to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
The case focuses on the responsibility of online food delivery platforms and restaurants to ensure that customers receive what they have ordered. When a delivered product does not match what was advertised, consumers can challenge it as a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
