Consumer protection: Delivery platform liable for shortfall in quantity

Section 4(10) of the Consumer Protection (ECommerce) Rules, 2020, casts an obligation on the e-commerce service provider to provide a replacement or refund in case of deficiency in service

Raja Vikrant Sharma, a law student at Panjab University in Chandigarh, used his mobile app to place an order on Swiggy Instamart on December 30, 2024. He ordered Nestle Classic Milk Chocolate and 1 kg Nagpur oranges, which he intended to carry with him while visiting his maternal aunt. Swiggy levied a handling fee of ₹28.61.

 

Upon delivery, he found the package containing the oranges to be in a torn condition. He checked the weight and found it to be only 824 grams instead of 1 kilogram. He was not provided any bill for the items purchased.

 

He immediately raised a concern with Swiggy. However, no refund was given for the shortfall in quantity. Calls to customer care failed to resolve the grievance. An exasperated Sharma then filed a consumer complaint before the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (district commission). He pointed out that Swiggy failure to resolve his concern caused him considerable mental anguish.

 

Swiggy contested the case, contending that its app merely provided an electronic platform for facilitating transactions between customers and independent third-party merchants and restaurants that list and sell food, beverages and grocery items. Swiggy claimed that it was merely an intermediary and had no role in assessing the quality or quantity of any product sold on its platform, and hence it could not be held liable. Swiggy also pointed out that a disclaimer to this effect was incorporated in the terms and conditions on its app and website. It argued that this constituted a binding agreement that absolved it of any liability for any product or service provided through its platform.

 

Sharma argued his own case in person. The district commission noted that the complaint concerned the torn package and the shortfall in the quantity of oranges. It relied on the transcript of Sharma’s chat with Swiggy customer care, which indicated that the grievance was genuine but had not been resolved.

 

The commission observed that the invoice established that the products had been sold by Swiggy Instamart as an ecommerce entity. It considered the provisions of Section 4(10) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which cast an obligation on the e-commerce service provider to provide a replacement or refund in case of any deficiency in its service.

 

The commission, therefore, concluded that the company was liable for the deficiency in respect of the ordered quantity of oranges and for failing to refund the amount for the short delivery.

 

Accordingly, in its order of November 3, 2025, delivered by presiding officer Pawanjit Singh for the Bench along with member S K Sardana, the commission ordered Swiggy to pay ₹2,000 towards compensation. A period of 45 days was given for compliance, and any delay would attract 12 per cent interest.

 

The writer is a consumer activist