Orissa

Cuttak

CC/126/2019

Purnachandra Dalai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop of Biriyani Box - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha

08 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.126/2019

 

Purnachandra Dalai,

S/O: Ghana Dalai,At:RMS Qr. No.2,

Near RPF Barrack,

Railway Station, Cuttack-753003.                                ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.    Prop. of Biriyani Box,Buxi Bazar Road,

           Durga Bazar,Cuttack-753001.

 

2.    The Branch Head of SWIGGY,Mahavir Apartment,

    Orissa State Electric Colony,Cuttack-753012.

 

3.     The Managing Director of SWIGGY Head Office,

     Sarjapur Main Road,Jakkasandra,

     Karmangala,1^st Block,Bangalore-560034

            (Near Sony World Signal & GKP Optical).                        ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     14.10.2019

Date of Order:    08.12.2022

 

For the complainants:          Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1        :          Mr. A.Naik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.2 & 3:         Mr. S.,Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

     The case of the complainant as made in the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that he had ordered for “Tangdi Chicken Kebab” from RMS,Qr. No3,Railway Station Gate No.2,Gandarpur,Cuttack on 8.9.19 through online SWIGGY  from ‘Biryani Box’ restaurant.  As per the scheme, the complainant was entitled to get 60% off in the indented food and was to pay Rs.82/- only including delivery charges for 2 pieces of “Tangdi Chicken Kebab” but the market price for the said dish was of Rs.179/-.  After getting the parcel of the food as indented, the complainant when unpacked it, found that instead of two pieces of “Tangdi Chicken Kebab” only one piece is there and on query he learnt that two pieces were only for advertisement and not for sale.  It is for this, the complainant has filed this case seeking cost of the food article of Rs.179/- alongwith the cost of Rs.82/- which he had paid, his litigation cost of Rs.10,539/-, a sum of Rs.20,200/- towards his mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.19,000/- towards compensation.  Thus, the complainant has totally claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps in this case.

                 The complainant alongwith his complaint petition has filed copies of several documents including photo copy of the indented item in order to prove his case.

2.  Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, though all of them have contested this case, O.P no.1 has filed his written version separately whereas O.Ps no.2 & 3 have conjointly filed their written version in this case.  From the written version of O.P no.1 it is noticed that he has mentioned that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed as there was no deficiency in service as he has no role to play.  According to O.P no.1, it is O.Ps no.2 & 3 who had informed the complainant about the discount and he has no role in that.

                 As per the written version of O.Ps no.2 & 3, they admit about the delivery of food item through SWIGGY on online orders.  They have alleged that O.P no.1 uses the SWIGGY platform to advertise offer and sale the prepared food products.  The role of these two O.Ps is like intermediary to facilitate the transaction between the customer and the third party restaurants/merchants.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on their part.  They had aptly shifted the responsibility upon the O.P no.1 through their written version who according to them, is responsible for the food item indented, prepared, packed and sealed and also for the delivery of it to the customer as they have nothing to do in that.  Thus, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary costs.

3.    Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues No.ii.

Out of the three issues, Issues no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the various copies of documents as annexed in this case by the complainant, it is noticed that Annexure-1 reveals the discount applied by SWIGGY 60 enabling the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.82/- towards the “Tangdi Chicken Kebab” of two pieces and cost of which is reflected as Rs.179/-.  Annexure-2 the KOT in this aspect also reveals that one quantity of “Tangdi Chicken Kebab” (Half) includes two pieces of “Tangdi Chicken Kebab”.  Annexure-3 reveals that the item consists of only one piece of “Tangdi Chicken Kebab”.  Annexure-4 series reflects about the queries in this aspect as made by the complainant to the O.Ps.  After going through all these documents as available here in this case, this Commission has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that infact there was offer by the O.Ps for two pieces of “Tangdi Chicken Kebab” for a discount price of Rs.82/- instead of a price of Rs.179/- and thus by delivering only one piece of “Tangdi Chicken Kebab” there is practise of unfair trade by the O.Ps and the O.Ps are also liable for deficiency in their service towards the complainant.  This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as sought for.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Though they had tried to play facebee by throwing the responsibility upon each other. The O.Ps are thus directed to reimburse to the complainant the price of the “Tangdi Chicken Kebab” as taken from him of Rs.82/-.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment and further to  bear his litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,500/-.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 8^th day of December,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.   

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                            Member