The Consumer court has directed the food delivery app, Zomato to pay compensation of Rs.8,362 to the law student after food orders was neither delivered nor the amount refunded.
The opposite parties, Zomato India Pvt. Ltd engaged on demand food delivery business with the help of a website www.zomato.com. By a mobile application by name Zomato delivers food items from restaurants with the assistance of their human network with the aid of GPS devices by charging service change as well as price of delivery of food items. The opposite party is the manufacturer for food items including vegetarian, non- vegetarian, and liquid edible items which are being sold through the mobile application/website.
On 07.08.2019 at about 8.17 pm while the complainant was residing at Amrita Hostel, Tutors Lane, Statue Junction, Thiruvananthapuram for educational purpose the complainant ordered to purchase one Chicken salt and pepper and 3 Kerala Parotha using Zomato online application by paying Rs.176/- to Zomato India Pvt Ltd. But Zomato on behalf of opposite party neither delivered the food item to the complainant nor refunded the amount to the complainant paid against the order through ATM/Debit card from his bank account, even though the complainant demanded the same by making multiple communication to the representative of the opposite parties on the same day and later.
The opposite parties gave the complainant two reasons. They could not deliver the order as the complainant was collecting the food at the mentioned address. The non delivery happened due to an issue with the address of the complainant and also directed to correct the address of the complainant in Zomato App.
Since the restaurant had already started preparing the order of the complainant the opposite parties could not refund the amount of this order.
The complainant had suffered such a similar experience before this incident. The Zomato amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The bench of E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim (President), S.Sandhya Rani (Member) and Stanly Harold (Member) has directed the opposite parties to refund Rs.362 (Rs.l76+186) with 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realisation. The opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.5000 as compensation for mental agony sustained by the complainant. The parties were also directed to pay Rs.3000 to the complainant as costs of the proceedings.
Case title: Arun G Krishnan v/s Mr.Deepinder Goyal (CEO)