A Delhi Consumer Court has penalized, a food delivery app and a restaurant responsible for displaying misleading buffet prices on its delivery platform and directed them to jointly pay rupees one lakh as compensation to a customer for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience and litigation costs.
The District Commission and Disputes Redressal Commission bench, led by President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, directed Themis Barbecue House to refund rupees 3,988 to the customer who was overcharged as per the pricing displayed on Swiggy Dine Out, and rupees 254 towards illegally levied service charge, both with 9 percent annual interest.
In an order dated September 21st, the Commission said, “The OP-1 (Swiggy) cannot escape from its responsibility merely by quoting section 79 of the Information Technology Act. It has to show conclusively that the OP-1 was performing due diligence in all respects as necessitated in the respective legislations and rules framed thereunder.”
The order followed a complaint by advocate Pramir Kumar Singh, who had booked a table for 15 people at Khemi’s Barbecue House through the diner section of the Swiggy app for April 7, 2024.
As per the listing on the platform, the cost for two showed as rupees 1,500, implying a price of rupees 750 per person. However, the restaurant charged rupees 1,050 for vegetarian buffet and rupees 1,100 for a non-vegetarian buffet, resulting in an additional expense of rupees 300 and 350 per person respectively.
The commission also mentioned that there was no indication on Swiggy listing that the cost for two figure was merely an estimate. It further stressed that the difference of around 42-47 percent between the displayed and the actual prices was material and held that the continued display of the lower price despite Swiggy having access to accurate itemized pricing amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Holding both the restaurant and the delivery platform responsible, the commission rejected Swiggy’s contention that it was merely an intermediary and was protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.
Noting that the menu did not disclose restaurants levy of a 10% service charge on beverages described in the bill as ‘Service Charge’ instead of ‘Staff Contribution’, it held it to be a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
Both the restaurant and the delivery platform have been directed to pay the amount within four weeks of the receipt of the order, failing which the opposite parties would be liable to pay 12% annual interest on the entire amount after the expiry of the four-week period.