Delhi

North East

CC/339/2022

Kapil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swiggy - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.339/22

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Kapil R/o 555/7 A 1, Gokul Dham Society, Moti Ram Road, Mansarovar Park, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Swiggy (Online Food Delivery)   Head Office:- Swiggy Customer Care Office Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Tower D, 9th Floor, IBC Knowledge Park, Bannerghatta Road, Benguluru 560029 Karnataka, India   Branch/City Office:- GO1 O4U Service, 890, UdyogVihar, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER:

17.08.22 17.05.24 26.07.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                      ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 12.08.22 Complainant ordered sweets from Opposite Party online vide order no. 143378686152 and paid Rs. 1,107/- via his credit card, Citibank and at 5:52 p.m. Complainant received message that his order has been delivered by delivery boy Manish Kumar while the order was not received by Complainant by then. At around 6:40 p.m. Complainant called customer care of Opposite Party and was informed that they are unable to contact the delivery boy as his phone is switched off and they are unable to help the Complainant. Further the Complainant was advised by Opposite Party to email about his problem. The Complainant sent his email and in response, Opposite Party sent email to Complainant that they will try that Complainant will not face that kind of problem again in future. The Complainant again inquired about the amount already paid and in reply the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that after investigating the Complainant’s issue, they were unable to validate his claim therefore unable to issue any compensation. Thereafter, Opposite Party again sent email that they are unable to solve the problem and had no option to pay compensation for inconvenience. Therefore, Complainant sent email again that he did not want any compensation but only want the refund of Rs. 1,107/- which was paid by him. The Complainant had called customer care of Opposite Party several times but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for the amount paid by him of Rs. 1107/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental harassment. He further prayed for litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.01.23. Thereafter, Opposite Party moved an application for setting aside the Ex-parte order which was dismissed vide order dated 12.06.23.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party.We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
5. The case of the Complainant is that Complainant had placed an online food order with the Opposite Party on the festival of Rakshabandhan. It is alleged that the said order was not delivered and the order status was shown on the site of Opposite Party as marked delivered. On raising the issue, the Opposite Party expressed their inability to resolve the issue as their delivery boy could not be contacted. It is further alleged that Opposite Party neither issued any refund of the order amount nor paid any compensation for the inconvenience caused. The Complainant alleges deficiency in service and prayed for refund as well as the compensation.
6. We have considered the contentions of the Complainant and also perused the record of the file.
7. The Complainant has relied upon the internet generated copies of inter alia Order summary/Bill issued by Opposite Party, credit Card Statement as payment proof, correspondence with the Opposite Party etc. The Complainant has filed the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian evidence Act in support of his evidence.
8. Perusal of the material on record shows that order was placed by the Complainant with the Opposite Party and paid in advance. The Complainant has also filed the record showing that Complainant received message that his order has been delivered by delivery boy Manish Kumar while the order was not actually received by Complainant by then. The Complainant contends that he was informed that they are unable to contact the delivery boy as his phone was switched off and they are unable to help the Complainant. The Complainant has also led evidence to show that he had written to the Opposite Party raising the issue and requested for refund but Opposite Party could not resolve the issue. The Complainant has also relied upon an email dated 12.08.2022 received from Opposite Party wherein Opposite Party informed the Complainant that after investigating the Complainant’s issue, they were unable to validate his claim therefore unable to issue any compensation.
9. The Complainant has also stated that after that an email was sent again by himthat he did not want any compensation and requested for the refund of Rs. 1,107/- which was paid by him and the refund was allegedly not issued.
10. It is to be noted here that Opposite party has not put in appearance in spite of notice and failed to file its version, hence, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the Complainant which is testified on oath.
11. In view of the relevant evidence submitted by the Complainant and of the unchallenged averments, we are of the considered view that the present case against the Opposite Party has been proved and the Complainant is entitled to get the refund and reasonable compensation.
12. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party i.e. Swiggy (Online Food Delivery) to refund to the Complainant Rs. 1,107/-, the amount paid against the subject order, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost with 9 % interest from the date of this order till its recovery.
13. Order announced on 26.07.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)