Chandigarh Consumer Commission Fines Swiggy & Instamart for Delivering Underweight Oranges, Finds Deficiency in Service
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh has held Swiggy Ltd. and its quick-commerce partner Instamart (Kwickbox Retail Pvt. Ltd.) liable for deficiency in service after an order delivered on 30 December 2024 contained a torn pack of oranges weighing only 824 grams instead of the contracted 1 kilogram and the sellers failed to remedy the grievance. The Commission found that the respondent platforms did not take timely or effective steps to replace the product or process a refund, and that the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment as a result.
The matter came before a Bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and S.K. Sardana (Member). The complainant, Raja Vikrant Sharma, placed an order through the Swiggy application for a package including Nestlé Classic Milk Chocolate and 1 kg Nagpur oranges, and paid the billed amount. On delivery the orange pack was found torn and the scale reading showed 824 grams. No physical bill was provided at the time. The complainant immediately raised the grievance through Swiggy’s chat support and followed up with customer-care calls, requesting replacement or refund, but received no satisfactory redressal. Photographic evidence of the torn pack and the communications with Swiggy were placed on record.
Swiggy denied any liability on the ground that it acted merely as an intermediary platform facilitating transactions between consumers and independent merchants. Instamart did not file its written statement and its defence was struck off. The Commission observed that the invoice produced by the complainant recorded Swiggy as the seller and, in any event, e-commerce entities are subject to obligations under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. In particular, Rule 4(10) was noted, which requires e-commerce entities to effect payments for accepted consumer refund requests within a reasonable time as prescribed by governing authorities.
On the facts, the Commission found that delivery of a product in a quantity less than what was ordered, coupled with a failure to rectify the deficiency despite repeated complaints, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Tribunal rejected Swiggy’s contention that mere facilitation absolved it of responsibility, relying on the tax-invoice and the statutory duties of e-commerce entities under the Consumer Protection framework.
Having regard to the evidence and the inconvenience suffered by the complainant—who had intended the purchase as a gift and was stranded without immediate assistance—the Commission considered a modest compensatory award appropriate. It held that the consumer had been put to mental agony and unnecessary expense and that nominal litigation costs ought to be recovered.
The Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed Swiggy Ltd. and Instamart (Kwickbox Retail Pvt. Ltd.) to pay ₹2,000 jointly and severally to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs. The amount is to be paid within 45 days, failing which it will carry 12% simple interest per annum from the date of default until realization.
Cause Title: Raja Vikrant Sharma V. SWIGGY Limited & 2 Ors.
Case No: DC/44/CC/78/2025
Coram: Pawanjit Singh (President), S.K. Sardana (Member)
