Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1140/2019

Gunveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uber eats - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Siddharth Gulati & Anshul Jindal

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1140/2019
Date of Institution	:	25.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	25.11.2022

 

                     

            

 

Gunveer Singh s/o Sh.Harsimran Singh r/o H.No.2057, Sector 15-C,Chandigarh.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.  Uber Eats having its Office at Godrej Eternia, Plot No.70, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.

 

2.  La Pinoz Pizza, Shop No.13, Sector 67, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager.

 

3.  Zomato through its Authorized Representative having its Corporate Office at Vipul Tech Square, Ground Floor, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase-5, Sector 43, Gurugram, Haryana.

 

    Regd.Office: 12-A, Ground Floor, 94, Meghdoot Nehru Place, South Delhi, New Delhi.

 

Chandigarh Address: Plot No.149, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

 

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SMT. PRITI MALHOTRA	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	None for the complainant.
	OP No.1 exparte Sh.S.S.Gill, Adv. for OP No.2 Sh.Harkaran Singh, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

   

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  he is regular user of the application i.e. uber eats of OP No.1 and on 05.10.2019, he placed an order from OP No.2 through the app of OP No.1 for delivery of food and the same was delivered to him by OP No.1 but he was charged Rs.10.50 under the head bag fee in the bill and he was left in utter shock that he was never given a bag for which he was charged. Since, the amount was very small, therefore, he did not pay any attention to that thinking that the same was charged by mistake. Subsequently, he again placed an from OP No.2 through the app of OP No. and again he was charged a sum of Rs.10.50P under the head bag fee but was never given any bag.  It has further been averred that the duty of OP No.1 is to receive the already packed food item by the restaurant and to deliver it to the customer and OP No.1 does not use any additional bags over the already packed food by the restaurants.  It has further been averred that charging of additional bag fee or delivery charges by OP No.1 amounts to unfair trade practice on its part. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     In its written statement, OP NO.2 has stated that it is only a franchisee holder on behalf of “La Pinoz Pizza” and it is not liable for “La Pinoz”and the complainant has not impleaded the actual firm running the said outlet.  It has further been stated that it receives order through OP No.1 and the food items were also delivered by OP No.2 and bills were raised and it never charged for the carry bag and the same was charged by OP No.1 and as such OP NO.2 cannot be made liable for anything done by OP No.1.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     In its separate written statement, OP No.3 has stated that it has been wrongly impleaded as a party and its name ought to be deleted from the array of the parties as  OP No.1 i.e. Uber Eats has been acquired by it i.e. Zomato Pvt. Ltd. on 21.01.2021 and the transaction detailed in the complaint took place on 05.10.2019 and the present complaint is dated 22.11.2019, which is prior to the date of acquisition. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of OP No.3 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
5.     We have heard the contesting Counsel for the parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
6.     The thorough perusal of the documentary evidence on file especially the bills (Annexures C-1 & C-2) shows that the same have been issued by OP No.1 and the amounts for the order placed have been paid to OP No.2. The aforesaid documents are sufficient enough to presume that there is some internal arrangement between OPs No.1 and 2 qua the order(s) being placed with OP No.2 and then delivery of the ordered product(s) to OP No.1.  There is no clarity regarding the inter se adjustment for the disbursal of the monetary gains out of the ordered transaction(s).  Certainly there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such they are jointly and severely liable for resorting to unfair trade practice on account of charging the packing charges from the complainant which as per law they are not allowed to do so.
7.     During the pendency of the instant complaint, the issue was raised by the Counsel for OP No.2 that OP No.1 has been taken over by OP No.3 and thus, they are not liable for any of the acts of OP No.1 even if it is there.   At the same time, the Counsel for OP No.3 has vehemently argued that as per the MoU signed between OPs No.1 and 3, the liability, if any arisen before entering of such MoU is of OP No.1 only and OP No.3 is not liable to indemnify the complainant in any manner. However, we are restrained to decide the issue qua inter se liability between them and simply it is ordered that the OPs are liable for proven unfair trade practice resorted to by them for which the complainant needs to be compensated.
8.       In view of the above discussions, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs, and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua them. The OPs are jointly and severally directed:-
   1. to refund the packing charges of Rs.10.50P each qua two bills (Annexure C-1 and C-2) to the complainant.
   2. to pay composite compensation of Rs.Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses.      
   3. By way of punitive damages, to deposit Rs.25,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.
9.         This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount at Sr.No.(i) to (ii) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order, till its realization. The amount mentioned at Sr.No.(iii) be deposited in the account aforesaid, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the same will also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its deposit. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary (SCDRC), U.T. Chandigarh, for necessary action.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 25/11/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER