Chandigarh State Commission Holds Swiggy Liable For Unilateral Deduction Amount For Undelivered Products
Smita Singh
19 July 2024 2:15 PM GMT
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held Swiggy liable for unilateral deduction of half amount for undelivered products during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was held that while it was not liable for delivery disruptions given the special pandemic circumstances, the deduction of the amount from the Complainant's payment amounted to unfair trade practice.
Brief Facts:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Complainant placed an order for fruits and vegetables from Swiggy. The listed seller from whom the order was placed was My Fresh (“Seller”). The Complainant made an advance payment of Rs. 737/-, which included delivery charges of Rs. 50/-. On the day of delivery, the Complainant received a call from the delivery boy at 11:12 A.M. Despite waiting for a considerable time, the delivery boy did not show up. Later, the Complainant noticed that the status of his order was unilaterally changed to 'cancelled' by Swiggy. When the Complainant raised the issue with Swiggy, it claimed that the delivery boy had attempted to deliver the order but received no response. According to the Complainant, the delivery boy never came to his residence. Swiggy refunded only 50% of the amount, i.e., Rs. 368/-, without providing any explanation for the deduction. The Complainant's request for the remaining refund went unanswered. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).
In response, Swiggy contended that the Complainant ordered the fruits and vegetables from an independent third-party seller via its platform. Swiggy acted merely as an intermediary through its web interface. Due to COVID-19 protocols, the delivery partner assigned to the Complainant was not allowed to enter his premises. Further, the delivery partner made multiple attempts to contact the Complainant but received no response, leading to the order's cancellation and its return to the Swiggy Hub.
The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Swiggy to refund the balance amount of Rs. 368/- and pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1,500/-. Dissatisfied with the extent of relief granted, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”).
Observations by the Commission:
The State Commission observed that while the District Commission partially allowed the complaint, it did not hold Swiggy liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The State Commission noted that during the COVID-19 period, various restrictions and advisories led to significant disruptions across many sectors, including logistics and delivery services. These disruptions resulted in delays, cancellations, and other operational challenges for online-ordered products. Given these extraordinary circumstances, the State Commission held that Swiggy was not strictly liable for the non-delivery of products.
However, the State Commission took a different stance on the financial transactions involved, particularly the non-refund of payments for undelivered products. The Complainant paid Rs. 737/- for the order and faced a 50% deduction without adequate justification. The State Commission found this to be an unfair trade practice, as consumers should not face additional financial penalties for services not rendered. The unilateral deduction of half the paid amount without providing the product or a full refund reflected poorly on Swiggy's commitment to consumer rights and satisfaction.
The State Commission held that while the non-delivery of products during the COVID-19 period due to unavoidable disruptions was understandable and should not attract liability, the non-refund of the complete payment and the unwarranted deduction of 50% constituted unfair trade practices. Thus, it was held that the District Commission rightly ordered a refund of the deducted amount and awarded compensation and litigation expenses, which were deemed just and adequate. Consequently, no case was made for enhancing the relief awarded by the District Commission.
The State Commission upheld the District Commission's order and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Sh. Vishal Gupta vs Swiggy and Others
Case No.: Appeal No. 2 of 2024
Advocate for the Complainant/Appellant: Shri Abhishek Sharma
Advocate for the Respondents (Swiggy): Shri Atul Sharma
Date of Pronouncement: 15th July 2024
