30-minute delivery commitment: Consumer panel slaps ₹11,000 fine on Swiggy

BATHINDA: The district consumer dispute and redressal commission, Bathinda, has directed food delivery platform Swiggy to pay ₹11,000 as compensation to a Bathinda resident for deficient service in providing a platter of snacks worth ₹248.

The order was released on Wednesday by the bench comprising president of the commission Kanwar Sandeep Singh and members Shivdev Singh and Paramjeet Kaur.

Complainant Mohit Gupta of Bathinda’a Thermal Colony had placed an order for a vegetable roll and Afghan chap roll on December 7, 2019, through Swiggy. The total cost of the order was ₹248, including delivery charges and GST. Gupta made an online payment of ₹148 and availed of a discount coupon of ₹100.

Gupta said Swiggy did not deliver the order according to its promotional commitment of 30 minutes. The complainant cancelled the order but got an online refund of only ₹74.

Gupta’s legal representative in the case Varun Bansal said the remaining amount of the complainant was deducted by the service provider without any justification.

Appearing before the commission, Swiggy’s counsel stated that Swiggy is “neither the seller of the food or beverages nor delivers the food or beverages on its own and therefore, it cannot be held liable for any deficiency arising out of non-delivery of order either by the restaurant or by the delivery partner.”

It further pleaded that the said order was cancelled after (Gupta) did not respond to the repeated phone calls made by a pick-up and delivery partner, who was unable to locate the given delivery address.

However, the commission rejected Swiggy’s claim that it has no role to play in the entire transaction of sale and purchase of food between the complainant and the opposite party except for facilitating the placing of the order.

“If Swiggy has a contract with a restaurant or pick-up and delivery partner, it is the responsibility of the opposite party (Swiggy) to get the job done and provide proper service to the customer with whom it has made a contract or received charges on behalf of the restaurant or pick-up and delivery partner.”

The commission also observed that Swiggy failed to place any details, including the identity of the pick-up and delivery partner, his statement or any evidence supporting the claim that calls made by him to the complainant.