Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1026/2019

Vikas Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swiggy - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1026 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	14.10.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	08.03.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Vikas Garg s/o Sh.Rishi Pal Garg, R/o H.No.168/3, Pipli Wala Town Manimajra, Chandigarh

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Swiggy through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory, having its Corporate Office at 9^th Floor, IBC Towers, Tower-D, 4/1 Banner Ghatta, Main Road, Bhawani Nagar, S.G.Palya, Bangaluru, Karnataka 560029

 

2]  Swiggy Branch Office through its Authorised Signatory having its office at SCO No.154-155, Sector 17-C, Deepak Tower, Near DC Office, Chandigarh.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Sh.Nitin Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

   Sh.Atul Sharma, Adv. for OPs  

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant placed an order through OP Company App on 16.8.2019 for Aloo Parantha X1/Kadai Paneer + One Butter Naan and paid an amount of Rs.90/- being discounted price/rate vide Ann.C-1.  However, the order was not delivered and when checked on OP Company App, the status of order was shown as “delivered”, whereas the ordered food was delivered on some other location. It is submitted that the OP Company expressed sorry for it and asked the complainant to contact delivery partner vide Ann.C-2.  It is submitted that on next day the complainant received message to the effect that “As this order is passed in our records, so compensation in any form cannot be arranged, I hope you understand our limitation”.  Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that answering OP is engaged in providing online platform for ordering and delivering food and beverages from neighborhood restaurants of the customers.  It is stated that the answering OPs, operating through electronic platform, acts as an intermediary to facilitate transaction between independent third party restaurants/vendors selling, prepared food and beverages and the customers.  It is also stated that answering OPs are not seller of the food or beverages nor delivers the food on its own and therefore, they cannot be held liable for any deficiency in services arisen on the part of independent third party restaurant/vendor or delivery service providers.  It is submitted that the order placed by the complainant from said independent restaurant/vendor was not delivered to the complainant and the complainant himself admitted this fact that he gave instructions to PDP (Pick-up and delivery service providers) to deliver the food at the Kiryana Store and on complainant instructions, the said PDP delivered the food at the place mentioned by complainant over call.  It is also submitted that if the complainant has any grievance, that could only be against the restaurant partner or against the independent delivery service provider/delivery vendor and not against the answering OP.  It is also submitted that the contractual agreement is on principal to principal basis and incase of any breach of any conditions of agreement, or any default by PDP is brought to the notice of the answering OPs, an enquiry is initiated, and a suitable action is taken against the said PDP including termination of the agreement.  It is pleaded that the said delivery service provider/deliver vendor is neither the employee nor agent of the answering OP but an independent service provider, who had contracted with answering OP on principal to principal basis for providing his services to answering OP.  It is also pleaded that answering OP cannot be held liable for alleged non-delivery of any food product to the complainant by an independent third party service provider and if the complainant has any grievance, it should be either against the restaurant/vendor or against the delivery service provider and answering OP has no role to play in this entire transaction. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record including written arguments.  

 

5]       The main dispute of the complainant is that the order placed by him on the site of the OPs has not been delivered to him despite of payment of Rs.90/-.  On the other hand, the OPs tried to wriggle out from the responsibility stating that the fault if any lies with third party i.e. the respective vendor/restaurant and it works on principal to principal basis.

 

6]      The stand of the Opposite Parties is that they acts as an intermediary to facilitate transaction between independent third party restaurants/vendors selling, prepared food and beverages and the customers and that they are not seller of the food or beverages nor delivers the food on its own and therefore, they cannot be held liable for any deficiency in services arisen on the part of independent third party restaurant/vendor or delivery service providers.  This plea/stand of OPs is not sustainable. The consumers places order with Opposite Parties with a hope that he/she will get good deals, good items and delivery thereof, but their faith shatters when they are not provided with such services.  The Opposite Parties cannot escape from the liability saying that it is not the seller of the item/goods and only provides portal for booking, because the Opposite Parties allow the vendors/restaurants to put their items for booking & sale on their portal, so it is their legal obligation to check that the consumer should be delivered the booked items.  The OPs cannot wriggle from their liability by taking such untenable pleas. 

 

7]       Moreover, it is admitted case of the OPs that default, if any, is on the part of restaurant/vendor, third party i.e. PDP (pick-up & delivery Service providers) with whom they had agreement for the purpose and claimed further that if any discrepancy is noted in their service (PDP), then answering OPs have a right to take action and also empowered to terminate the contract in case of default, but it has not been done in the present case.  The complainant has nothing to do with the contract of OPs with any third party and he is entitled to receive the product/item for which the payment has been made through OPs. 

8]       Keeping in view the facts & circumstance of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is proved.  Therefore, the present the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.90/- to the complainant being the cost of the item so paid. They are also directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.2500/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation expenses, on account of rendering deficient services and thrusting litigation upon the complainant.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.2000/- apart from above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.   

Announced

8^th March, 2022                                                                      

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER