Swiggy reportedly failed to refund the amount, and the customer dragged the Indian food delivery giant to the court.
Bengaluru man drags Swiggy to court for not delivering “death by chocolate”Also Read - Karnataka government forms SIT for probing into ‘obscene videos’ case that allegedly involved Prajwal RevannaHT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime, anywhere.
According to the report, a customer placed an order of ‘Nutty Death by Chocolate’ from Cream Stone in January 2023 through Swiggy.
The bench comprising President Vijaykumar M Pawale, V Anuradha and Renukadevj Deshpande called it an ‘unfair trade practice’ and directed Swiggy to pay compensation.
This is considered as clear unfair trade practice,” the bench said.
A consumer court in Bengaluru ordered food delivery aggregator Swiggy to compensate ₹5,000 to its customer for not delivering an ice cream that he ordered a few months ago, reported Bar and Bench. Swiggy reportedly failed to refund the amount, and the customer dragged the Indian food delivery giant to the court. Bengaluru man drags Swiggy to court for not delivering “death by chocolate”
Also Read - Karnataka government forms SIT for probing into ‘obscene videos’ case that allegedly involved Prajwal Revanna
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime, anywhere. Explore now!
According to the report, a customer placed an order of ‘Nutty Death by Chocolate’ from Cream Stone in January 2023 through Swiggy. However, the order was not delivered, but the order status in the app said ‘delivered.’ When the customer contacted Swiggy, it did not initiate the refund, which led the customer to approach the court. A total of ₹187 was paid for this particular order.
However, Swiggy countered the complainant by arguing that it was only an intermediary between the customer and third-party restaurants and was protected from liability as per the provisions of the Information Technology Act.
The bench comprising President Vijaykumar M Pawale, V Anuradha and Renukadevj Deshpande called it an ‘unfair trade practice’ and directed Swiggy to pay compensation. “The complainant has proved that service is deficient by the opposite party as it failed to refund the amount despite being unable to deliver the order. This is considered as clear unfair trade practice,” the bench said.
The customer demanded compensation of ₹10,000, but the court, however, called it exorbitant and directed Swiggy to pay ₹3,000 as compensation and another ₹2,000 as litigation costs along with the refund of ₹187.
