Identical Packaging, Different Charges: Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Domino's Liable

The Commission observed that merely displaying a packaging fee in an invoice does not legitimise an arbitrary levy, particularly when the company failed to establish any additional cost or special packaging used for home deliveries.

Facts

The complainant, Manan, placed a home delivery order through Domino's official application and, upon examining the invoice, found that ₹20 had been charged separately as packaging fees. A few days later, he placed takeaway and dine-in orders from the same outlet and discovered that no packaging charges had been levied, even though the food was packed in identical pizza boxes.

After the branch manager failed to explain the discrepancy and advised him to take up the issue with the company, the complainant compared the invoices and alleged that charging packaging fees only for home delivery orders amounted to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. He sought refund of the packaging charges with interest, compensation, litigation expenses, and directions restraining the company from continuing the practice.

Domino's contested the complaint, arguing that the packaging charge was clearly disclosed in the invoice displayed on its application before the complainant completed the transaction. It contended that the complainant voluntarily accepted the charges by proceeding with payment and could have cancelled the order if he disagreed. The company further submitted that packaging used for home delivery was necessary to ensure safe transportation and maintain the quality of the food. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, it sought dismissal of the complaint.

Observations

The Commission noted that there was no dispute regarding the levy of ₹20 as packaging charges on the complainant's home delivery order or the fact that no such charges were imposed on the takeaway and dine-in orders. It observed that photographs placed on record showed that the food was supplied in similar pizza boxes across all three modes of service. The Commission noted that Domino's had failed to produce any evidence showing that additional or specialised packaging material was used exclusively for home delivery so as to justify the separate charge.

Rejecting Domino's defence that the complainant had accepted the invoice before making payment, the Commission held that merely displaying a charge in an invoice does not validate an arbitrary or unreasonable levy. It observed that the company failed to explain why packaging charges were recovered only from customers opting for home delivery while identical packaging was provided for takeaway and dine-in orders without any separate charge. Such selective recovery, the Commission held, created an unreasonable distinction between consumers and lacked transparency.

The Commission further held that packaging forms an integral part of supplying food in a deliverable condition and cannot ordinarily be treated as a separate charge without a transparent policy or demonstrable additional cost. It also noted that the complainant's order qualified for Domino's free delivery offer for orders above ₹149, yet the company failed to establish any additional service or expense attributable solely to that order. In these circumstances, the Commission held that recovering a separate packaging charge amounted to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

Decision

Allowing the complaint in part, the Commission directed Domino's Pizza to refund the ₹20 packaging charge to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from January 8, 2025. It also directed the company to pay ₹2,000 towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

Additionally, Domino's was directed to deposit ₹20,000 in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh. The Commission ordered compliance within 45 days, failing which the amounts payable to the complainant would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of the order until realization.

Case Title: Manan v. Domino's Pizza (Jubilant Foodworks Limited) & Anr.

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. CC/46/2025

Appearance: Manan, Complainant in person; Saurav Gulia, Advocate, for the Opposite Parties.

Click Here To Read/Download Order