District Consumer Forum Directs Zomato And Box 8 Desi Melas To Pay Compensation For Deficiency In Service
The Bangalore District Consumer Commission, Shanthinagar directed Box8 Meals (Opposite party no.3) and the manager of Zomato (Opposite party no.2) to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The bench comprising Mr. K.S. Bilagi as president and Mr. B.Devaraju and Mrs. V. Anuradha as members were hearing a complaint filed...
The Bangalore District Consumer Commission, Shanthinagar directed Box8 Meals (Opposite party no.3) and the manager of Zomato (Opposite party no.2) to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The bench comprising Mr. K.S. Bilagi as president and Mr. B.Devaraju and Mrs. V. Anuradha as members were hearing a complaint filed to seek damages from Zomato and Box8 meals for deficiency in service , negligence, and distress, pain, agony, trauma etc.
The complainant ordered a Amritsari chole thali meal from Box8 Meals through Zomato (opposite part no.1 &2) but the food was not delivered for a long time. Despite his best efforts the complainant could not get his order and hence filed the complaint for deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.
The opposite party no.1 & 2 (Zomato and the manager, Zomato) submitted that they are only intermediary and non-supply of food by the restaurant does not amount to deficiency on their part. They further submitted that they do not guarantee the quality of food, the prices or the availability of all food items in the menu of a restaurant. They stated that the amount paid by the complainant was returned and a coupon of Rs.1000/- was also offered for use for 1 year as a goodwill of gesture.
The bench considered three questions from the aforementioned points:
- Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
- What order?
On the first question the district commission observed that the opposite party No.2 cannot shirk its responsibility. The refund of Rs.256.10 paise is a clear indication that the opposite party No.2 had received the amount with an intention to provide dinner meal to the complainant by picking the same from the restaurant of opposite party No.3. The non-supply of food by opposite party No.3 also equally deficiency of service of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is not a necessary and proper party.
The bench further observed that the complainant has not admittedly paid any court fees and the relief claimed by him for Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses is too exorbitant.
In the view of the discussion and perusal of documents the bench directed that the complaint against opposite party no.1 is dismissed and Box8 Meals (Opposite party no.3) and the manager of Zomato (Opposite party no.2) to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. They are directed to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of order.
Case: Abhishek MR V. Zomato and Ors.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 121/2022
complainant In person : Abhishek MR
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Harsh Varshan