Delhi District Commission Holds India Cakes Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Failure To Deliver Birthday Cake After Collecting Additional Delivery Charges
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II, comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President) and Ritu Garodia (Member), held India Cakes Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver a birthday cake and bouquet despite accepting the entire consideration, including an additional delivery charge of ₹275. The Commission allowed the complaint and directed the company to refund the amount paid along with interest and compensation.
Brief Facts
Priyanka Bhardwaj, one of the complainants, placed an online order with India Cakes Private Limited (Opposite Party) on 09-02-2024 for a pineapple cake and a bouquet of six mixed roses to celebrate her grandmother's birthday. The order was scheduled for same-day delivery in Sultanpur District, Uttar Pradesh. The company's website advertised “free same-day delivery.” The Opposite Party acknowledged the order and sought payment of Rs. 756/- towards the order. Shortly thereafter, it demanded an additional Rs. 275/- as delivery charges. Despite initially objecting and seeking cancellation, the complainant paid the additional amount due to the urgency of the occasion.
Later the same evening, the company confirmed through email that the order was being processed for delivery. However, the cake and bouquet were never delivered. Upon contacting the company, the complainant was initially informed over the phone that the delivery could not be completed because the destination was too far, and she was assured that a refund was being processed. Two days later, however, the company refused the refund through email, claiming that delivery had been attempted but the receiver had refused to accept the order. The complainant submitted audio recordings to show that the delivery personnel had merely called to confirm the address and returned without reaching the location due to the distance involved.
Aggrieved by the failure to deliver the order despite payment of the delivery charges demanded by the Opposite Party, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II, seeking a refund of Rs. 756/- along with the additional delivery charges of Rs. 275/- and compensation.
India Cakes Private Limited, the Opposite Party did not appear and the case proceeded ex parte against them.
Observations & Decision
The Commission held the Opposite Party guilty of deficiency in service. It observed that the complainants had placed an order for delivery of a birthday cake and bouquet and paid ₹756 through the company's website. The invoice issued by the company reflected a delivery window between 11:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and did not indicate any additional delivery charges. The complainants made the payment relying on these representations.
The Commission noted that approximately 15 minutes after the order was placed, the company demanded an additional delivery charge of ₹275 on the ground that the delivery location was far from its centre. It observed that this charge had neither been disclosed at the time of placing the order nor at the time of making payment. Although the complainants initially objected, they eventually paid the amount due to the urgency of the occasion.
The Commission further observed that despite accepting the entire consideration and subsequently informing the complainants that the order was being processed for delivery, the company failed to deliver the cake and bouquet. No prior intimation regarding non-delivery was provided and the complainants were compelled to repeatedly follow up through emails and telephone calls.
Upon examining the evidence submitted by the complainant, the Commission found that the delivery personnel had returned without delivering the order because the destination was too far away. The recording also revealed that a representative had assured the complainant that the refund would be processed.
The Commission emphasized that the deficiency in service assumed greater significance because the order had been placed for a special occasion, namely, the complainant's grandmother's birthday. It observed that despite making full payment and continuously following up with the company, the complainant did not receive the ordered items.
Accordingly, the Commission held the Opposite Party guilty of deficiency in service and allowed the complaint. It directed the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 1,031/- along with 7% interest. The company was also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Case Title: PRIYANKA BHARDWAJ & ANR vs INDIA CAKES PRIVATE LIMITED CC NO. DC/AB1/670/CC/216/2024