West Bengal elections 2026: It's TMC vs BJP as 152 seats head to polls today in Phase-1
Punjab to witness blackout mock drills on April 24; Know why
'I am sorry': Former BCCI selector breaks silence on Rohit Sharma’s biggest India snub
IRS officer’s daughter murder accused arrested; police link him to another crime a day earlier
Delhi government bars fuel for vehicles without valid PUC to tackle pollution in NCR region
US-Iran peace talks second round soon? Trump shares 'good news'
VIRAL
The customer argued that attractive advertisements or campaigns on timely delivery should not be published if they cannot be fulfilled.
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order the online food delivery platform Zomato to pay 10,000 and a free meal to Chandigarh resident for cancelling an order of pizza, which was not delivered despite its campaign “Zomato users will now get their food guaranteed on time or their money back”.
As per the complaint filed by a person named Ajay Sharma back in 2020, about his ordered pizza through Zomato at 10:15 pm for Rs 287.70 through PayTM ‘For on-time’ delivery. However, Zomato rejected the order at 10:30 PM and the refund process was initiated. Later, he filed a case with Chief Commissioner, Consumer Protection Authority.
Read | Zomato issues apology over Hrithik Roshan's ‘Mahakal thali' ad
“Had there been any difficulty in delivering the item at the relevant time, the respondents should not have made the booking, which they cancelled later on. Thus, grave deficiency in rendering service is attributable on the part of the respondents on this account,” Sharma said to Mint.
Further, he said "when the respondents charged Rs 10 extra for the "on time or free" campaign launched by them, they were expected to deliver the same on time and in not doing so and simultaneously, cancelling the order on their own, amounted to deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on their part."
The order was announced by President Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and Member Justice Rajesh K Arya. He said such attractive advertisements or campaigns should not be published if they cannot be fulfilled.
“For the deficiency in providing service and for indulging in unfair trade practices on the part of the Respondents and for causing extreme physical harassment and mental agony, the Respondents are liable to indemnify the Appellant,” stated in the order.