A consumer commission in Uttarakhand has directed a food delivery platform and a restaurant to jointly pay Rs 10,520 to a customer after he received a seven-inch pizza instead of the 10-inch pizza he had ordered through the app.

The commission, headed by President Gagan Kumar Gupta along with members Dr Amresh Rawat and Ranjana Goyal, held that delivering a pizza three inches smaller than the one advertised amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

The commission has directed the parties to pay the amount within 45 days. The compensation includes Rs 505 towards the price of the pizza, Rs 15 towards delivery charges, Rs 5,000 for mental and physical harassment, and another Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.

What Was The Case?

According to the Indian Express report, the customer had ordered a 10-inch pizza priced at Rs 505 through an online food delivery platform. However, when the order arrived, he found that the pizza was only seven inches in size.

The customer immediately contacted the platform's support team and complained about the discrepancy. However, his request for a refund was rejected.

After being unable to resolve the issue, the customer approached the National Consumer Helpline and the CPGRAMS portal. He also sent a legal notice to the concerned parties. When these efforts failed to secure a refund, he moved the consumer commission.

What Did The Food Delivery Platform Argue?

The food delivery platform argued that it was merely an intermediary connecting restaurants with customers. It maintained that it was neither the manufacturer nor the seller, preparer or packager of the food.

The commission, however, did not accept this defence. It held that the customer had received a product that did not match what was advertised and ordered.

The commission consequently held the opposite parties jointly and severally liable and ordered them to pay Rs 520 towards the pizza and delivery charges, along with Rs 5,000 for mental and physical harassment and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs.

The order highlights that online food delivery platforms and restaurants cannot ignore discrepancies between what is advertised and what is ultimately delivered to consumers. Where the product delivered does not match the description or order, consumers can seek relief before consumer forums on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.