The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rangareddy directed food delivery aggregator Swiggy and a restaurant to compensate a complainant with ₹10,000 after she alleged that she received non-vegetarian food despite ordering a vegetarian dish.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was dealing with a complaint filed by Shruti Baheti, a resident of Madhapur. The opposite parties were Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Swiggy’s offices in Bengaluru and Madhapur, and the restaurant Rolls King.
The complainant stated that on September 22, 2020, she had ordered a vegetarian special roll from a restaurant, paying ₹237. The order was delivered 54 minutes late. When she sought an explanation, the delivery worker explained that the delay occurred because he had to deliver several other orders.
She stated that it was only after she started eating that she found pieces of chicken and sausage. She then sent a legal notice to the other party (OP) and later filed a complaint with the consumer commission.
Bundl Technologies and Swiggy denied all allegations and argued that they were not concerned with the food supplied once the order is placed. It was the duty of the restaurant to prepare the food and hand it over to the delivery worker in a sealed container. The customer was offered a refund which she refused.
Rolls King too denied all allegations and contended that Vegetarian Special Roll was made with paneer burji, “soya chap”, mushroom and soya shammi kebab. The complainant alleged that this was non-vegetarian and the photos submitted by her show the presence of soya as an ingredient.
After taking into account all evidence and arguments placed on record, the commission stated that photos did show the presence of chicken pieces. It averred that given that the delivery worker was entrusted with several orders the food was delayed and that there could have been a mix-up of food packages.
The commission stated that the delay and delivery of non-vegetarian food was deficiency in service. While the restaurant argued that the images show soya and not chicken, the commission stated that they “failed to file the video footage maintained by the restaurant in their day to day business.”
Apart from ordering compensation of ₹10,000, the commission directed OP to pay ₹5,000 as costs.
