Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Swiggy & Instamart Liable For Short Delivery; Orders Compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), has held Swiggy Ltd. and Instamart (Kwickbox Retail Pvt. Ltd.) liable for delivering a lesser quantity of goods and failing to redress the consumer's grievance, and directed them to compensate the complainant for the...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), has held Swiggy Ltd. and Instamart (Kwickbox Retail Pvt. Ltd.) liable for delivering a lesser quantity of goods and failing to redress the consumer's grievance, and directed them to compensate the complainant for the inconvenience caused.
Brief facts of the case:
The complainant, Raja Vikrant Sharma, a law student at the Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh, placed an order on 30.12.2024 through Swiggy (OP No.1) using its Instamart quick-commerce service operated by Kwickbox Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.2). The order consisted of Nestle Classic Milk Chocolate and 1 kg Nagpur Oranges, for which he also paid a handling fee of ₹28.61, claimed by Swiggy to ensure timely and damage-free delivery.
However, upon delivery, the complainant found that the orange package was torn, and the net weight was only 824 grams, instead of the promised 1 kg. He also did not receive any physical bill. He immediately raised the issue through Swiggy's chat support and later through customer care calls, requesting either a refund, replacement, or at least a physical bill. Despite multiple follow-ups—supported by screenshots and chats—the issue remained unresolved.
The complainant highlighted that the order was intended as a gift for his aunt in Shimla, and due to the defective delivery and non-resolution, he suffered mental agony, health deterioration, inconvenience, extra expenses, and a disturbed travel schedule.
Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Chandigarh.
Contentions of the Complainant:
The complainant Contented that despite immediately raising the issue through Swiggy's chat support and customer care—seeking refund, replacement, or at least a bill—his grievance remained unaddressed. He submitted screenshots and chats showing multiple failed attempts at resolution. He contended that delivering less quantity, providing damaged packaging, and not resolving the complaint constituted clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of both opposite parties.
Contentions of Swiggy Ltd.
Swiggy argued that Swiggy operates only as an intermediary/e-commerce platform facilitating transactions between consumers and independent third-party sellers. It claimed that product quality, quantity, and pricing are controlled solely by the seller (Instamart/Kwickbox Retail), not Swiggy. They stated that the complainant, by placing the order, agreed to Swiggy's Terms and Conditions, which explicitly state that Swiggy is not responsible for incorrect, damaged, or unsatisfactory delivery of goods listed by third-party merchants.
Swiggy asserted that it had no role in assessing or determining the weight or condition of the oranges, and therefore could not be held liable. It denied all allegations of deficiency in service and maintained that the complaint was not maintainable against it.
Instamart did not file any written version within the statutory period despite multiple opportunities. As a result, its defence was struck off by the Commission on 19.05.2025.
Observation and Decision of the Commission:
The Commission noted that although the complainant ordered 1 kg Nagpur Oranges and Nestle Chocolate, the oranges delivered weighed only 824 grams and the packet was torn. Despite promptly reporting the issue and seeking refund or replacement, no action was taken by Swiggy or Instamart.
Delivering less quantity was held to be a clear deficiency in service. The Commission rejected Swiggy's plea of being “only an intermediary,” observing that the invoice listed Swiggy as the seller and that e-commerce entities have a statutory duty under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 to process refunds. Instamart, having filed no reply, left the complainant's evidence unrebutted.
Holding both opposite parties jointly and severally liable, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed them to:
- Pay ₹2,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation cost.
- Make payment within 45 days, failing which it shall carry 12% interest per annum until realization.
Case Title: Raja Vikrant Sharma vs. Swiggy Ltd. & Instamart
Case No.: DC/44/CC/78/2025