South West Delhi District Commission Holds McDonald's Liable For Sending Different Meal Of Lower Value And Failure To Refund

Brief Facts:

Mr Nitesh Garwal (“Complainant”) placed an order for a Spicy Chicken Wrap extra meal from McDonalds priced at Rs. 427.75/- through the Zomato app. The delivery, made by Zomato's delivery partner, was received at the Complainant's address. However, upon opening the package, the Complainant discovered that the delivered items did not match the order placed on Zomato. The Complainant ordered a Big Spicy Chicken Wrap Extra Value Meal, costing Rs. 425.45/-, but received a Mc Spicy Chicken Burger along with a Coke and French Fries, valued at Rs. 294/- (excluding charges and taxes).

In an attempt to rectify the mistake, the Complainant tried contacting Mcdonald's via phone but received no response. The Complainant made multiple calls over two days. Frustrated with the lack of response, the Complainant sent a legal notice to Mcdonald's, seeking compensation for the loss incurred due to the unprofessional and irresponsible behaviour of the restaurant. Despite the legal notice, McDonald's did not respond or address the issue. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-West Delhi (“District Commission”). Mcdonald's did not appear for the proceedings and was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission:

After reviewing the evidence presented by the Complainant, the District Commission held Mcdonald's liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for sending a different meal altogether which was priced lower than what the Complainant paid for. Further, the District Commission was of the view that if McDonald's delivered the wrong food, it becomes its obligation to refund the amount to the Complainant.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Mcdonald's to refund Rs. 425.75/- to the Complainant along with a 10,000/- lump sum for mental harassment and litigation charges incurred by the Complainant because of deficiency on part of the Mcdonald's within 45 days from of the receipt of the order.

Case Title: Nitesh Garwal vs Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited and Ors.

Case No.: CASE NO.CC/210/22

Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.

Advocate for the Respondent: None (Ex-parte)

Click Here To Read/Download Order