Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior, has held Zomato Private Limited and its local vendor, Burger Buddy, liable for delivering a non-vegetarian burger instead of a vegetarian burger. The commission found both parties guilty of deficiency in service and engaging in unfair trade practices.

Case Background

The case (CC/137/2024) was filed by Ashish Sharma, a 25-year-old resident of Gwalior, through his counsel Advocate Aditya Sharma, against Zomato Private Limited and Burger Buddy. According to the complaint, on February 2, 2024, Ashish Sharma placed an order for a vegetarian burger through the Zomato platform. Upon consuming the burger, he realized that it contained non-vegetarian components, which caused him severe emotional distress and violated his religious beliefs. Following the discovery, Sharma immediately lodged a complaint with Zomato's customer service. As per the judgment, "despite raising the complaint, Zomato refunded ₹175 and offered a ₹500 discount coupon." However, Sharma argued that this compensation was inadequate given the emotional harm caused by the delivery mistake. He contended that the delivery of a non-vegetarian burger instead of a vegetarian one amounted to negligence and a breach of consumer trust, prompting him to seek redress before the consumer forum.

Also Read: “One Blow Without Premeditation”: Supreme Court Modifies Life Sentence to 7 Years, Says Accused Acted “Under Sudden Provocation” in Road Rage Altercation

Defense by Zomato and Burger Buddy

Zomato, in its written submission, claimed that it merely acts as an intermediary connecting consumers with restaurants and is not responsible for food preparation errors. It further argued that the responsibility for any inaccuracies in the delivered food lies with the restaurant. Zomato emphasized that it had already refunded the amount and provided a discount coupon, thus fulfilling its obligations in good faith.

Burger Buddy, on the other hand, denied any wrongdoing. The restaurant argued that they had dispatched the meal according to the order details received on their system. They suggested that the complainant might have altered the meal or procured the burger from another source. Burger Buddy contended that there was no deficiency in their service and sought dismissal of the complaint.

Commission's Observations

The Commission, after examining the evidence, transaction records, and witness testimonies, rejected the defenses raised by Zomato and Burger Buddy. It observed that:

1. Zomato, as an online aggregator, has a duty to ensure accurate delivery and cannot evade liability by shifting the blame entirely onto the restaurant.

2. Burger Buddy is responsible for correctly preparing and dispatching orders in accordance with consumer requests.

3. The delivery of a non-vegetarian burger to a consumer who had specifically ordered a vegetarian item caused significant emotional and religious distress.

The Commission remarked that the error was not just a minor service lapse but a serious violation of the consumer's faith and personal beliefs. The court cited established precedents, including the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) judgment in M/S Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. v. K. K. Mittal (2016) and Mrs. Meenal Jagtap v. Miraj Cinemas (2023), to highlight the duty of care that service providers owe to consumers.

Also Read: ‘No Evidence, No Moral Turpitude’: Calcutta High Court Directs Gratuity Release to Former CMD, Citing Abuse of Disciplinary Power and Collective Responsibility

Commission's Verdict

The Gwalior District Consumer Commission, comprising Shri. Rajendra Prasad Sharma [President],  Smt. Suman Gouda Pandey [Member], and Shri. Revathi Reman Mishra [Member], delivered its final judgment on March 20, 2025. The Commission ruled that both Zomato and Burger Buddy were equally liable for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The order directed the companies to compensate Ashish Sharma as follows:

1. ₹5,000 each for the mental agony and emotional distress caused by the erroneous delivery.

2. ₹1,000 each toward the cost of litigation.

The Commission instructed both parties to pay the compensation within 45 days from the date of the order. Failure to comply would attract additional legal consequences. Additionally, the Commission ordered that a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website to enhance public awareness regarding consumer rights.

Appearance

For the Complainant: Adithya Sharma, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties: Yash Jain, Rishabh Mishra, Advocates

Cause Title: Aashish Sharma V/s Zomato P Ltd

Case No: CC/137/2024

Coram: Shri. Rajendra Prasad Sharma [President], Smt. Suman Gouda Pandey [Member], Shri. Revathi Reman Mishra [Member]

[Read/Download order]