The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh has held that Domino’s Pizza indulged in an unfair trade practice by levying packaging charges only on home delivery orders while using identical packaging for takeaway and dine-in orders, directing the company to refund the packaging fee with interest, pay compensation to the consumer and deposit ₹20,000 in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh.
The complaint was filed by Manan, who ordered pizza through Domino’s official application on January 8, 2025 and noticed that ₹20 had been charged as packaging fees. Suspecting the levy to be arbitrary, he later placed takeaway and dine-in orders from the same outlet and found that no separate packaging charges were imposed, despite the food being packed in similar pizza boxes. Alleging that the selective levy lacked transparency and amounted to an unfair trade practice, he approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund, compensation and directions restraining the company from continuing the practice.
Domino’s opposed the complaint, contending that the packaging charges had been clearly disclosed in the invoice before payment, and that the complainant had voluntarily accepted the terms by proceeding with the purchase. It further argued that packaging used for home delivery was necessary to ensure safe transportation and preservation of food quality, and that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice had been committed.
After examining the evidence, the Commission found that the complainant had successfully demonstrated that similar pizza boxes were used for home delivery, takeaway and dine-in orders, while Domino’s failed to produce any evidence showing that additional or specialised packaging had been used exclusively for home deliveries to justify the separate charge.
Rejecting Domino’s defence that the complainant had accepted the invoice before making payment, the Commission observed:
“
“Merely displaying a charge in an invoice cannot validate an unfair or arbitrary levy, if such charge is otherwise found to be unreasonable or discriminatory in nature. The Opposite Parties have failed to explain why packaging charges were recovered only from customers opting for home delivery, whereas the same packaging was provided in takeaway and dine-in services without any additional charges. Such selective imposition of charges creates an unreasonable distinction between consumers availing different modes of service and lacks transparency.”
The Commission also rejected the argument that packaging was essential for safe delivery, holding that packaging forms an integral part of supplying the product in a deliverable condition. It observed that Domino’s had failed to establish any transparent policy or demonstrate any additional service or cost attributable solely to the complainant’s order. Since the complainant’s order qualified for free delivery, recovering an additional amount under the head of packaging charges without justification amounted to an unfair trade practice.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed Domino’s to:
● Refund ₹20, being the packaging charge, along with 9% annual interest from January 8, 2025;
● Pay ₹2,000 towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses; and
● Deposit ₹20,000 in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of PGIMER, Chandigarh, within 45 days, failing which the monetary directions would carry 12% annual interest from the date of the order until realization.