Cancelling a customer’s food order has put a dent in the pocket of Zomato. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has ordered the Indian online food delivery platform to pay ₹10,000 to a customer whose pizza order was cancelled back in 2020. In addition, the food delivery platform will also have to serve a free meal to the customer. The cancellation of the order by the company was in violation of their campaign, “Zomato users will now get their food on time guaranteed or get their money back.”
The incident happened with a man named Ajay Kumar Sharma. As per his complaint, he placed a pizza order from Italy Treat Pizza using Zomato’s app at around 10:15 pm and made an online payment of the bill which amounted to ₹287, through Paytm. The bill was inclusive of taxes and ₹10 for on-time delivery. However, Zomato could not deliver the pizza and Sharma received a message that his order has been cancelled. A refund process was also said to be initiated.
“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,” said Sharma as per a report in Mint.
Although the amount had been refunded, the angry customer asked Zomato to either keep their promise of on-time delivery or pull back their campaign that says “kabhi to late ho jaata”. He even demanded compensation for harassment among other things.
Alleging unfair trade practices, Sharma filed a complaint before the district commission which dismissed it in the preliminary stage. He then went ahead to appeal before the state commission. He also made a complaint to the Chief Commissioner of the Consumer Protection Authority in New Delhi.
The penalty order was given by President Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and Member Justice Rajesh K Arya observing that “the man was deprived of food at late night hours, which he specifically ordered for his children”. They cited that his feelings must have gotten hurt and he would have had to inform the same to his children “with a heavy heart.”
“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 further read.
Read the Latest News and Breaking News here
Comments
0 comment