Canceling a customer’s food order put a dent in Zomato’s pocket. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh ordered the Indian online food delivery platform to pay ₹10,000 to a customer whose pizza order was canceled in 2020. Additionally, the food delivery platform will also have to serve a free meal to the customer. . The company’s cancellation of the order was in violation of their campaign, “Zomato users will now receive 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 app at around 10:15 p.m. and made an online bill payment in the amount of ₹287, via Paytm. The invoice included tax and ₹10 for on time delivery. However, Zomato was unable to deliver the pizza and Sharma received a message that her order had been cancelled. A reimbursement procedure would also have been launched.
“Had there been difficulties in delivering the item at the relevant time, the Respondents should not have made the booking, which they later cancelled. Thus, a serious deficiency in the provision of service is attributable to share of respondents on this count,” Sharma said according to a Mint report.
Although the amount was refunded, the angry customer demanded that Zomato either fulfill its promise of on-time delivery or withdraw its campaign that says “kabhi to late ho jaata”. He even demanded compensation for harassment, among other things.
Alleging unfair business practices, Sharma filed a complaint with the district commission which dismissed it at the preliminary stage. He then appealed to the state commission. He also filed a complaint with the Chief Commissioner of the Consumer Protection Authority in New Delhi.
The punishment order was issued by Presiding Judge Raj Shekhar Attri and Member Judge Rajesh K Arya, observing that “the man was deprived of food late at night which he specifically ordered for his children”. They cited that his feelings must have been hurt and that he should have told his children “with a heavy heart”.
“For inadequacy in the provision of service and for indulgence in unfair business practices on the part of the Respondents, as well as for having suffered immense physical harassment and mental agony, the Respondents are liable to indemnify the Appellant”, continues the ‘arrangement.
Read it Recent news and recent news here