In a recent ruling, the Bengaluru Consumer Court ordered Swiggy to compensate a customer with ₹3,000, along with ₹2,000 for litigation expenses. The case emerged from a 2023 incident where the food delivery giant failed to deliver an ice cream as per the customer's order via their app.

The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission has additionally mandated Bundl Technologies, the parent company of Swiggy, to reimburse the customer with the ₹187 originally paid for the ice cream order.

The consumer forum concluded that the complainant effectively demonstrated a deficiency in service on the part of Swiggy, as the company failed to refund the payment despite not delivering the ordered product. This conduct by Swiggy was deemed both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, according to the ruling.

Last year, on January 26, the customer placed an order through Swiggy for the 'Nutty Death by Chocolate' ice cream from the 'Cream Stone Ice Cream' restaurant. Despite the ice cream not being delivered, the Swiggy app falsely indicated it as 'delivered' once a delivery agent purportedly picked it up. Swiggy neglected to refund the order amount to the customer, leading the customer to seek relief from the consumer forum.

During the forum proceedings, Swiggy argued that it functioned solely as an intermediary connecting customers with third-party restaurants or merchants. Swiggy contended that it was shielded from liability under the provisions of the Information Technology Act.

Swiggy reiterated that it couldn't be held accountable for any purported error made by its delivery personnel. Furthermore, Swiggy asserted that it lacked the capability to independently verify whether an order had been successfully delivered, especially when it was marked as delivered within the app interface.

In their analysis of the case, the bench, consisting of President Vijaykumar M Pawale, V Anuradha, and Renukadevi Deshpande, observed that Swiggy had neglected to respond to a legal notice sent by the customer demanding a refund.

The bench proceeded to dismiss Swiggy's argument claiming protection from liability as an intermediary under the Information Technology Act. They pointed out that the exemption provided by the Act was confined to the dissemination of information and did not extend to the sale of goods and services, as was the case with Swiggy's platform.

The consumer court reached the conclusion that the allegations against Swiggy regarding deficiency of service and unfair trade practices were substantiated. However, it expressed the opinion that the customer's claim for ₹10,000 as compensation and ₹7,500 as litigation expenses seemed excessive.