The Commission held that Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Swiggy) and Themis Barbeque House were equally responsible for the misleading price representation, observing that the restaurant was the service provider that put up the advertisement while Swiggy was the platform on which the representation was displayed.

Facts

The complainant, Praveen Kumar Singh, booked a table at Themis Barbeque House through the “Dineout” section of the Swiggy mobile application for April 7, 2024. A booking for 10 persons was made through his account, while another booking for four persons was made through his wife's account.

At the time of booking, Swiggy Dineout displayed the “cost for two” as ₹1,500, indicating a price of ₹750 per person. However, the restaurant subsequently charged ₹1,050 per vegetarian buffet meal and ₹1,100 per non-vegetarian buffet meal, resulting in an additional charge of ₹300 and ₹350 per person respectively over the displayed rate.

The complainant also alleged that the restaurant levied a 10% service charge on beverages. He objected to the levy and raised a complaint through Swiggy's virtual chat, but the grievance remained unresolved.

Aggrieved by the alleged overcharging and levy of service charge, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission.

Contentions of the Parties

Swiggy contended that its Dineout service was merely an intermediary facilitating transactions between customers and restaurants and that it was not responsible for details concerning products or services communicated by restaurants.

It submitted that the ₹1,500 “cost for two” figure was merely an average or estimated figure intended to indicate affordability and did not represent the exact price. It further stated that customers could access the detailed menu and exact pricing before making a booking. Swiggy also relied upon the protection available to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Themis Barbeque House, despite being duly served, did not enter appearance or file a written statement and was consequently proceeded against ex parte by order dated February 7, 2025.

Observations & Decision

The Commission found that the Swiggy Dineout listing did not indicate that the “cost for two” figure was merely an estimate. The difference between the displayed and actual prices ₹300 for vegetarian food and ₹350 for non-vegetarian food, or about 40–47% was held to be material and amounted to misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.

Referring to the 2022 Guidelines on Misleading Advertisements and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, the Commission held that both the restaurant and Swiggy had responsibilities regarding the accuracy of the price representation.

The Commission rejected Swiggy's reliance on Section 79 of the IT Act, observing that intermediary protection was conditional on due diligence. Swiggy had not shown any mechanism to reconcile the displayed “cost for two” with actual billing.

On the service charge, the Commission noted that the menu did not disclose the charge or use the prescribed term “Staff Contribution”, while the bill described it as “Service Charge”. Referring to the Delhi High Court's judgment in National Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India, the Commission held that the levy constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed Themis Barbeque House to refund ₹3,988 towards the excess amount charged over the price represented on Swiggy Dineout, along with 9% annual interest from April 7, 2024, within four weeks of receipt of the order.

The restaurant was also directed to refund ₹254 towards the service charge levied on the beverage bill, with 9% annual interest from April 7, 2024. Swiggy and Themis Barbeque House were jointly and severally directed to pay ₹1 lakh towards compensation for mental agony, harassment, inconvenience and litigation costs.

The Commission further directed that if the awarded amount was not paid within the stipulated four weeks, the opposite parties would be liable to pay 12% annual interest on the entire awarded amount from the expiry of the four-week period.

Case Title: Praveen Kumar Singh v. Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No. : Consumer Complaint No. 8/DC/80/CC/422/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order