In response, Swiggy attempted to shift blame to the delivery agent, claiming that it could not be held responsible for the agent’s error since the company acted as an intermediary between the customer and the restaurant. However, the court rejected Swiggy’s argument, stating that not refunding the customer’s money despite the undelivered order constituted ‘deficiency of service’ and ‘unfair trade practice.’ The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Redressal Commission ruled that Swiggy had failed to provide adequate service to the customer and ordered the company to refund the 187 rupees for the ice cream along with 3,000 rupees as compensation and 2,000 rupees for litigation costs.
Swiggy Fined for Undelivered Ice Cream, Ordered to Pay Customer Compensation
