Why a Delhi Consumer Panel Ordered Swiggy and a Restaurant To Pay INR 1 Lakh to Customer

A Delhi consumer commission has held Swiggy and a restaurant responsible for displaying a misleading buffet price on the food delivery platform and directed them to jointly pay INR 1 lakh as compensation to a customer for mental agony, harassment, inconvenience and litigation costs.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench, led by President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, also directed Themis Barbeque House to refund INR 3,988 to the customer for the excess amount charged over the price displayed on Swiggy Dineout and INR 254 towards an illegally levied service charge, both with nine per cent annual interest, reports PTI Expired Food, Cockroaches Found: Hyderabad Suspends FSSAI Licences of Swiggy, Flipkart, Zepto Stores.

Background of the Complaint

The order came on a complaint by advocate Praveen Kumar Singh, who had booked a table for 14 people at Themis Barbeque House through the Dineout section of the Swiggy app for April 7, 2024. The Swiggy Dineout listing showed the "cost for two" as INR 1,500, implying a price of INR 750 per person. However, the restaurant charged INR 1,050 for a vegetarian buffet and INR 1,100 for a non-vegetarian buffet, resulting in an additional charge of INR 300 and INR 350 per person, respectively. The commission noted that there was no indication on the Swiggy listing that the "cost for two" figure was merely an estimate.

Liability and Rejection of Intermediary Defense

The commission stated that the difference of around 40-47 per cent between the displayed and actual prices was material. It held that the continued display of the lower price, despite Swiggy having access to accurate, itemised pricing, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. "Responsibility falls on both" the restaurant and Swiggy, the commission said, holding them equally responsible for the misleading advertisement.

The commission rejected Swiggy's contention that it was merely an intermediary and was protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. "The OP-1 (Swiggy) cannot escape from its responsibility merely by quoting section 79 of the Information Technology Act. It has to show conclusively that the OP-1 was performing due diligence in all respects as necessitated in the respective legislations and rules framed thereunder,” the commission said in an order on September 21.

The panel added that the platform had failed to place anything on record to show that it maintained a mechanism to reconcile the displayed "cost for two" figure with actual billing and could not escape its responsibility merely by invoking the provision. Swiggy Instamart and Zepto Among E-Commerce Platforms Penalised in FSSAI Crackdown on Misleading Listings.

Service Charge Violations and Directives

The commission also addressed the restaurant's levy of a 10 per cent service charge on beverages. It noted that the menu did not disclose the charge and the bill described it as "Service Charge" instead of "Staff Contribution", as required under the interim directions then applicable, ruling it to be a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. While directing the restaurant to refund the excess buffet amount and service charge with interest, the commission ordered Swiggy and the restaurant to jointly and severally pay INR 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment, inconvenience and litigation costs. The amounts were directed to be paid within four weeks of receipt of the order, failing which the opposite parties would be liable to pay 12 per cent annual interest on the entire awarded amount after the expiry of the four-week period.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Oct 03, 2026 03:15 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).