Why the failed delivery of Rs 187 ice cream, cost Swiggy more than Rs 5,000

The customer sought Rs 10,000 as compensation and an additional Rs 7,500 in litigation expenses from Swiggy for its failure to deliver the ice cream and subsequent refusal of a refund

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

A Bengaluru consumer court has ruled against food delivery giant Swiggy, ordering it to pay Rs 5,000 in compensation and litigation costs to a customer who did not receive an ice cream order placed through the app in 2023. According to a report by Bar and Bench, the decision was made after Swiggy falsely marked the order as delivered and refused to issue a refund despite customer complaints.

Here's what happened

On January 26, 2023, the customer ordered a 'Nutty Death by Chocolate' ice cream from 'Cream Stone Ice Cream' via the Swiggy app, paying Rs 187 online. However, even after payment, the app showed the order as 'delivered', though it had not reached the customer.

Despite taking the matter up with the app's customer care, Swiggy did not issue a refund, prompting the customer to seek help from the consumer forum.

Swiggy's defence

Ahead of the hearings, Swiggy argued that it was merely a middleman between customers and restaurants, and it was protected under the Information Technology Act.

The app further alleged that the mistake was made by the delivery agent, and they were not in a position to verify the delivery of every order, especially if it was marked 'delivered' on the app.

Consumer court ruling

Looking over the case, the bench comprising President Vijaykumar M Pawale, V Anuradha, and Renukadevi Deshpande disagreed with Swiggy's stance, finding them guilty of poor service and unfair practices. The bench also noted that they had failed to comply with a legal notice issued by the customer for a refund.

The court clarified that Swiggy could not escape responsibility for service quality or goods sold, despite its intermediary status. They added that the exemption under the Information Technology Act was limited to the dissemination of information and not applicable to the sale of goods and services.

The consumer court concluded that the allegations against Swiggy for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices stood proven.

How much did Swiggy have to pay?

The customer had sought a claim of Rs 10,000 as compensation and an additional Rs 7,500 as litigation expenses, which the court found to be exorbitant.

The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission instead ordered Swiggy to refund the original amount of Rs 187, pay Rs 3,000 as compensation, and Rs 2,000 as litigation costs to the complainant.