The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North District) has held e-commerce platforms responsible for accuracy of listed prices under E-commerce Rules, 2020, while rejecting Section 79 IT Act safe harbour where due diligence is not demonstrated. The Commission ruled that a ‘cost for two’ figure displayed on the Swiggy Dineout listing without any disclaimer or approximation notation creates a binding price representation, and a variance of 40–47% over the quoted price constitutes a material difference amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Sections 2(11) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Commission clarified that both the restaurant (as service provider and owner of the advertisement) and the e-commerce platform (as advertiser and host) are equally responsible for misleading advertisements displayed on the platform, under the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements, 2022 read with the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. Further, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not immunise an e-commerce intermediary that fails to demonstrate due diligence, including the absence of any mechanism to reconcile listed prices against actual billing.
Also read Supreme Court Seeks Unified Proposal on 30% Reservation for Women in District Bar Associations
The Coram of Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) observed that representation of price made to a consumer at the pre-booking stage, on the strength of which the consumer is induced to transact, creates a reasonable expectation that the actual billing will not differ materially from that representation, a variance of 40-47% over the quoted price is a material difference amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sections 2(11) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for which both the restaurant (as service provider/owner of the advertisement) and the e-commerce platform (as advertiser/host) are equally responsible.
The Commission pointed out that service charge levied without prominent menu disclosure and under a nomenclature that the Delhi High Court had directed to be replaced with ‘Staff Contribution’ constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and the Delhi High Court’s final judgment dated March 28, 2025, in NRAI vs Union of India confirms that service charges and tips are voluntary.
Accordingly, the Commission awarded a refund of Rs. 3,988/- for excess price, Rs. 254/- for the illegal service charge, and joint-and-several compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony, harassment, inconvenience, and litigation costs, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of payment and a contingent 12% p.a. on default after the four-week compliance window.
The protection of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is not available to an e-commerce intermediary that fails to observe due diligence, particularly where the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 read with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 mandate compliance with sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 79, added the Court.
Briefly, the complainant, Praveen Kumar Singh, booked a table at Themis Barbeque House (OP-2) through the ‘Dineout’ section of the Swiggy mobile application, owned and operated by Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), for a dining date of April 07, 2024. The booking was split across two accounts, one for 10 people via the Complainant’s own account and another for 4 people via his wife’s account, for the same date.
At the time of booking, the Swiggy Dineout listing displayed a ‘cost for two’ figure of Rs. 1,500/-, implying Rs. 750/- per person. However, the actual bill raised by OP-2 reflected Rs. 1,050/- per vegetarian buffet meal and Rs. 1,100/- for one non-vegetarian buffet meal, i.e., Rs. 300/- and Rs. 350/- extra per person respectively. Two separate bills were generated, and one of them carried a 10% service charge on the beverages ordered.
The Complainant asked OP-2 to remove the service charge citing the CCPA Guidelines dated July 04, 2022, but the restaurant refused and the Complainant paid it reluctantly. The Complainant also brought the matter to the notice of a police officer present near the restaurant, but the manager declined to address the grievance. The Complainant thereafter filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against both OPs, and sought refund of the excess amount, refund of the service charge, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs.
