The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh bench chaired by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member), found Swiggy accountable for unilaterally deducting half the amount for undelivered products amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission acknowledged the exceptional challenges posed by the pandemic, absolving Swiggy of responsibility for delivery disruptions. However, it deemed the deduction from the Complainant’s payment as an unfair trade practice.
Summary of Events:
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Complainant placed an order for fruits and vegetables with Swiggy, through the seller My Fresh. The Complainant prepaid Rs. 737, inclusive of Rs. 50 for delivery charges. On the scheduled delivery day, the delivery boy contacted the Complainant at 11:12 A.M. Despite waiting, the delivery was not made. Subsequently, the Complainant discovered that Swiggy unilaterally marked the order as ‘cancelled.’ When questioned, Swiggy asserted that the delivery attempt was made but received no response. However, according to the Complainant, the delivery boy never arrived at their residence. Swiggy refunded only 50% of the amount (Rs. 368) without justification, ignoring the Complainant’s request for the remaining refund. In response to this dissatisfaction, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (‘District Commission’).
Swiggy responded by stating that the Complainant had ordered fruits and vegetables from an independent third-party seller using Swiggy’s platform, where Swiggy functioned solely as an intermediary via its web interface. Citing COVID-19 protocols, Swiggy explained that the delivery partner assigned to the Complainant was not permitted to enter the premises. Despite making several attempts to contact the Complainant, the delivery partner received no response, resulting in the cancellation of the order and its return to the Swiggy Hub.
The District Commission partially granted the complaint, instructing Swiggy to refund the remaining amount of Rs. 368 and provide a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,500. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Complainant appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”).
Observations made by the Commission
The State Commission noted that while the District Commission partially upheld the complaint, it did not find Swiggy responsible for service deficiencies or unfair trade practices. Recognizing the widespread impact of COVID-19, which led to significant disruptions in logistics and delivery services, the State Commission observed delays, cancellations, and operational challenges affecting online purchases. Considering these exceptional circumstances, the State Commission concluded that Swiggy could not be held strictly liable for the non-delivery of the products.
However, the State Commission adopted a different viewpoint regarding the financial aspects of the case, particularly concerning the non-refund of payments for undelivered products. The Complainant had paid Rs. 737 for the order but experienced a 50% deduction without sufficient justification. The State Commission deemed this practice unfair, emphasizing that consumers should not bear additional financial penalties for services they did not receive. The unilateral deduction of half the payment without providing the product or a full refund raised concerns about Swiggy’s adherence to consumer rights and satisfaction.
While acknowledging the challenges posed by COVID-19, which could lead to unavoidable disruptions and non-delivery of products, the State Commission held that withholding the complete payment and making an unwarranted deduction of 50% constituted unfair trade practices. Therefore, the State Commission affirmed the District Commission’s decision to order a refund of the deducted amount and award compensation and litigation expenses, considering them fair and appropriate. As a result, the State Commission found no grounds to increase the relief granted by the District Commission.
Ultimately, the State Commission upheld the order of the District Commission and dismissed the appeal.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676