The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has ordered Zomato, the online food delivery service, to compensate a customer ₹10,000 and provide a free lunch in exchange for cancelling a pizza order. Despite their advertisement promising “Zomato users will now get their food on time guaranteed or get their money back,” Zomato cancelled the order.
In a complaint submitted, one Ajay Sharma claimed that at 10:15 pm, he ordered pizza through Zomato. He used Paytm to make a payment of 287.70, which included the taxes and ₹10 for on-time delivery. At 10:30 p.m., Zomato rejected the order, and a refund procedure was started.
Ajay Sharma complained to the Chief Commissioner of the Consumer Protection Authority in New Delhi. While Ajay Sharma received his money back, he urged Zomato to keep their word or remove their promotional advertisement, “kabhi to late ho jaata.” He asked for compensation for the harassment. But his argument was rejected. Later, he filed a plea before the state commission.
The complainant stated, “Had there been any difficulty in delivering the item at the relevant time, the respondents should not have made the booking, which they cancelled later on. Thus, grave deficiency in rendering service is attributable on the part of the respondents on this account.”
“When the respondents charged ₹10 extra for the “on time or free” campaign launched by them, they were expected to deliver the same on time and in not doing so and simultaneously, cancelling the order on their own, amounted to deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on their part,” According to a statement made by Ajay Sharma.
President Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and Member Justice Rajesh K Arya both made announcements about the order. They noted that if such seductive commercials or campaigns cannot be carried out, they should not be published. “For deficiency in rendering service and for indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents and also for suffering immense physical harassment & mental agony, the respondents are liable to compensate the appellant,” the order said.
