Consumer forum directs Zomato to provide one free meal, ₹10,000 after On Time or Free order gets cancelled

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) at Chandigarh recently directed food delivery service Zomato to provide a consumer one free meal and compensation of ₹10,000 for deficiency in service on not fulfilling its 'On Time or Free' delivery scheme [Ajay Kumar Sharma v Zomato]..The order was made by President Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and Member Justice Rajesh K Arya who were of the view that such alluring advertisements or campaigns should not be published by Zomato if they cannot fulfil them."For deficiency in rendering service and for indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents and also for suffering immense physical harassment & mental agony, the respondents are liable to compensate the appellant," it was recorded..The SCDRC took note of the fact that the appellant, whose plea was earlier dismissed by the District Commission, was deprived of food that he ordered for his children late at night. "The feelings of the appellant would have definitely got hurt, when he came to know about the cancellation of the order by the respondents on their own and at that time, how he would have, with heavy heart, told the same to his children who were already waiting for the meal at late night hours.".The appellant had ordered food on Zomato and paid ₹10 extra for the 'On Time or Free' option. The order was not delivered, and was finally cancelled. After the refund process was initiated, the money was returned to the appellant.The unsatisfied appellant, however, approach the district consumer forum seeking that Zomato either fulfil its promise or take back its promotional advertisement. Further, he claimed unfair trade practice on Zomato's part..The State Commission considered the fact that the delivery was not simply late, but was cancelled altogether."They cancelled the order of the appellant on their own without giving it a single thought that how the said cancellation would affect the appellant both mentally and physically," the order stated..It was concluded that had there been any difficulty in delivering the item, Zomato should not have made the booking in the first place. Therefore, the grave deficiency in rendering service was attributable to Zomato."In case, they were not able to deliver food items timely as per the ‘On time or Free’ campaign, then, they should not have charged Rs.10/- extra for the same, which further contributed to unfair trade practice on their part.".Thus, the order of dismissal passed by the District Commission was found to be wrong. For deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice and for causing immense physical harassment and mental agony, Zomato was found liable to compensate the appellant."In our concerted view, consolidated compensation on aforesaid counts and also for litigation expenses, if granted in the sum of Rs.10,000/- that would meet the ends of justice.".The appellant was represented by Advocate Naveen Kaushik while Zomato was represented by Advocate Harkaran Singh..[Read Order]