Author: Srividhya R, Government Law College, Trichy

This paper examines consumer protection issues arising from food delivery platforms in India, with particular focus on deficiency in service.  The rapid emergence of online food delivery platforms has revolutionised the food service industry by providing consumers with convenient access to a diverse range of restaurants and food outlets from the comfort of their homes while simultaneously raising critical concerns regarding consumer protection. This paper examines the deficiency of services, pricing discrepancies, cancellation issues and redressals. It is expected that the 2020 consumer protection e-commerce regulations would have stricter guidelines and better enforcement strategies. In the years to come, the following can be anticipated: A greater concentration on data privacy, Transparency and fair practices, Sustainability and ethical practices. 

KEYWORDS 

Consumer protection, E-Commerce, Deficiency of service, Unfair Trade Practices, Grievance Redressal Forum. 

India’s online food ordering and delivery market was valued at US$ 28.3 billion in 2022 and it is expected to grow at a CAGR of ~27% to around US$ 117 billion by 2028. The emergence of user-friendly apps and technology-enabled driver networks unlocked ready-to-eat food order and delivery as a major category in India in the last decade. Further, the changing consumer expectations contributed to this growth.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is the primary legislation. This Act outlines your rights. These include the right to safety. You have the right to be informed. Possess the right to choose. You also have the right to be heard. Furthermore, you have the right to seek redressal. This means you can seek compensation for unfair practices. Restaurants have a duty to provide quality food and services. They must adhere to fair trade practices. Therefore, if a restaurant falls short, you have legal recourse.

In OXFORD DICTIONARY a consumer is defined as “a purchaser of goods or services”. In BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY it is explained to mean ‘one who consumes. Individuals who purchase, use, maintain and dispose of product and services. Consumers who purchase food through online delivery platforms are also protected under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, along with the provisions of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

Consumer protection is a burning issue in e-commerce throughout the globe. E-Commerce refers to a mechanism that mediates transactions to sell goods and services through electronic exchange. E-commerce increases productivity and widens choice through cost savings, competitiveness and a better production process organisation.

OECD-1999 guidelines recognised, among others, three essential dimensions of consumer protection in e-commerce. All consumers need to have access to e-commerce. Second, to build consumer trust/confidence in e-commerce, the continued development of transparent and effective consumer protection mechanisms is required to check fraudulent, misleading, and unfair practices online. Third, all stakeholders-government, businesses, consumers, and their representatives- must pay close attention to creating effective redress systems. These guidelines are primarily for cross-border transactions

The term “Consumer” is defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in two parts, one in reference to a consumer who purchases goods and the second in reference to a person who hires services. Thus, the Act covers transactions for supply of goods and rendering of services. It covers the whole range of commodity markets as well as service markets. 

Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contractor otherwise in relation to any service and includes – 

1. any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; 

2. Deliberate withholding of relevant information by such a person to the consumer.

Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,"unfair trade practice" means a trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including the following practices, namely:-i. making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which (a) falsely represent that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade. 

The Act, 2019 provides, in addition to the existing three-tier grievance redress structure, the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority [CCPA]to provide regulatory, investigative or adjudicatory services to protect consumers’ rights. The CCPA has the powers to regulate/inquire/investigate into consumer rights violations and unfair trade practice suo moto or on a complaint received from an aggrieved consumer or on a directive from the government. The specific actions it can take include: 

• Execute inquiries into infringements of customer rights and initiate lawsuits.

• Order for the recall of dangerous/hazardous/unsafe products and services.

• Order the suspension of unethical commercial practices and false ads.

• Impose fines on suppliers or endorsers or publishers of false advertising.

A further deficiency arises when the platform does not respond meaningfully to complaints or delays refunds beyond the expected period. The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 require grievance mechanisms and timely handling of consumer complaints, so silence, bot responses or repeated transfers between platform and restaurant can themselves amount to deficient service. In practice, this makes redressal failure part of the same legal problem, not a separate one.

The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 mandate accurate product descriptions (Rule 5), grievance officers (Rule 4), and redressal within one month (Rule 4(3)), prohibiting substitutions without consent. FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards) Regulations, 2011 impose strict hygiene and labeling duties on platforms, with violations attracting penalties under the Food Safety Act, 2006.

Few of the judicial findings are as follows: 

• The Chandigarh District Consumer Forum imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 on Swiggy and the concerned restaurant for delivering a non-vegetarian item in place of the ordered food, holding it to be a clear case of deficiency in service. 

• The Kollam district forum awarded ₹8,362 (including ₹8,000 for agony) for non-delivery despite payment, criticizing automated refunds.

• District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered compensation for wrong items and poor support.

• Due to penalized delays and quality lapses. Karnataka courts imposed ₹60,000 for a ₹133 non-delivery, underscoring accountability further to which the Supreme Court critiques of NCDRC delays highlight systemic redressal gaps. These rulings invoke equity, awarding punitive costs beyond actual loss.

Competition distortions like deep discounts causing service strains, urging platform neutrality under Competition Act, 2002. CPA 2019's evolution, citing Zomato cases to argue for expanded e-rights including quality control. Furtherly, critique gig economy compliance, paralleling consumer harms. 

The research initially depended on the rigorous review of the consumer protection guidelines released from time to time by various bodies, such as the OECD and UNCATD, accompanied by an analysis of the Indian consumer protection legal structure. The Indian Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 were the review and analysis subjects. The study used e-commerce driver data collected from secondary sources-published material; the survey reported e-commerce growth and trends and consumer protection and conducted an online survey of 432 online consumers during August and September 2020.

On 20^th July 2018 FSSAI officially released the notification mandated to delist non-licensed eateries from the 10 major food delivery platform , yet even now many orders have been received in a stall, adulterated.  

RULE 7 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 mandates that e-commerce entities must process refunds to consumers in a timely manner, in accordance with the applicable directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India. These guidelines generally require that refunds be credited within a reasonable period, typically ranging from 3 to 7 business days, depending on the mode of payment. However, in the context of food delivery platforms, there exists a significant divergence between the regulatory framework and actual practice. Consumers frequently encounter delays in receiving refunds, even after the lapse of the stipulated period and in certain instances, the refunded amount fails to reflect in their accounts altogether.

Such delays and failures in refund processing constitute a clear instance of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This issue is further aggravated by the inefficiency of internal grievance redressal mechanisms, where consumers are often met with automated responses or prolonged resolution timelines. The failure to ensure timely refunds not only undermines consumer trust but also highlights the inadequacy of compliance with statutory obligations. Therefore, despite the existence of Rule 7, the recurring instances of delayed or non-refunded payments demonstrate a gap between legal mandates and practical enforcement, thereby reinforcing the argument that food delivery platforms are engaging in deficient service practices.

RULE 4 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 imposes specific obligations on e-commerce entities to establish an effective grievance redressal mechanism. In particular, Rule 4(3) mandates the appointment of a grievance officer who is required to acknowledge consumer complaints within 48 hours and resolve them within one month from the date of receipt. Yet this is inconsistent in the practice under the food delivery platform.

Therefore, despite the clear mandate under Rule 4(3), the persistent delays and inefficiencies in grievance redressal mechanisms of food delivery platforms highlight a significant gap between regulatory requirements and actual practice, reinforcing the argument that such platforms are engaging in deficient service.

After analysing the complaints received on NCH, CCPA inter alia gives the following findings:

• Stale food: The food was not only stale but also exhibited signs of being rotten and re-cooked, accompanied by a foul odour and hence leads to 3,241 complaints lodged against a single platform i.e., Swiggy regarding deficiencies in services, specifically relating to the company's failure to issue refunds

• Delay in processing the Refund: As per the policy of those respective platforms a refund mandatorily be provided within 3 to 5 working days, yet the consumers did not receive any reimbursement. 

• Charging more than MRP: It has been noticed that Swiggy consistently charges prices that exceed the Maximum Retail Price (MRP).

• Promised Service not provided: Instances include delivering fewer items than ordered, substituting order items with incorrect ones (e.g., delivering a vanilla cake instead of a butterscotch cake) and delivering food with insects.

• Delay in Delivery of Product: It has been observed that Swiggy frequently fails to deliver products within the promised timeframe. Such delays cause significant inconvenience to customers who rely on timely delivery for their daily needs.

Food delivery platforms can be held liable for deficiency in service or such under the consumer protection Act.

Liability of Food Delivery Platforms:

Due to the poor logistics of the food delivery platform such as the delivery routes are not optimized properly, failure of demand forecasting and a worst restaurant-delivery integration leads to the demand accountability and delay in delivery. Due to human errors at the restaurant and logistical issues during the delivery process also results in the delivery of wrong orders in online food delivery. 

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability:

Vicarious liability holds an employer responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee committed during the course of employment. In consumer cases, this might involve defective services or misleading representations by staff imputing liability to the company. The doctrine promotes accountability but raises pleading challenges. Therefore, it is evident that even if the delivery partner fails to do his work properly still the platform is held liable.

As per the data shared by National Consumer Helpline (NCH) for the period of 1st April 2023 to 30th April 2024, 584 grievances are still pending for resolution, and the same report states that there are nearly 10,590 cases filed in the grounds of Deficiency in Services, Delivery of Defective / Damage Product, Paid amount not refunded, Delivery of Wrong Product, Non-Delivery of Product, Amount debited but not credited to beneficiary, Product/ Product Accessories Missing, Delay in Delivery of Product, Promised service not provided, Charging more than MRP, and other such

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the My Space Inc. vs Super Cassettes Industries Ltd 236(2017) DLT478 held in Para 47 that "Section 79 is neither an enforcement provision nor does it list out any penal consequences for noncompliance. It only sets up a scheme where intermediaries have to follow certain minimum standards to avoid liability; it provides for an affirmative defence and not a blanket immunity from liability.

FSSAI Flags 21,000 Complaints Against Food Delivery Apps in Last Five Years

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) registered 21,042 consumer grievances against online food delivery apps in the last five years, B.L. Verma, Minister of State for Consumer Affairs, disclosed in the Rajya Sabha.

The complaints received by the FSSAI concerned food safety issues such as adulterated, unsafe, or substandard food, labelling defects, and misleading claims and advertisements. Customers lodge complaints via channels like the web portal, mobile app, FSSAI helpline, X, and Facebook, which are later directed into the Food Safety Connect Portal, the minister stated. The year-wise distribution of the grievances reported was as follows:

• 2020-21: 805

• 2021-22: 3,726

• 2022-23: 4,321

• 2023-24: 4,708

• 2024-25: 7,482

The existing grievance redressal mechanisms of food delivery platforms are inadequate to ensure effective consumer protection. 

Before examining the adequacy of grievance redressal mechanisms in food delivery platforms, it is essential to outline the fundamental rights available to consumers under The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.  

1. Right To Refund, Return and Cancellation:        

Rule 6 (5) (g) – E-commerce platforms must provide clear policies on refunds, returns, exchanges, and cancellations ensuring that consumers know their options when a product or service does not meet their expectations. 

Rule 6 (6) – No e-commerce entity shall impose cancellation charges unless the same was communicated to the consumer at the time of purchase. 

Rule 6 (7) – Consumers are entitled to receive refunds for cancelled transactions in a prompt and transparent manner, as per the platform’s stated policies.

2. Right to Grievance Redressal

Rule 4 (4) – Every E-commerce entity shall establish a satisfactory grievance redressal mechanism having regard to the number of grievances usually received by such an entity from India, and must appoint a grievance officer for grievance redressal who is in charge of addressing consumer complaints. The contact details of the grievance officer like the name, contact details, and designation of such officer on its platform should be displayed prominently on the platform.

Rule 4 (5) – the grievance officer must acknowledge consumer complaints within 48 hours and resolve them within one month of receiving the complaint.

3. Liability Of E-Commerce Platforms 

Rule 6 (8) – if a seller or product violates consumer protection law, the platform will also be held accountable for failing to conduct due diligence in vetting sellers and their products. 

Rule 6 (9)- platforms are required to facilitate the resolution of consumer grievances, especially if a product is faulty or does not match the description. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam (2021)23 Facts – Flipkart was accused of selling a product that did not comply with the legal metrology act. Legal Issue – Liability of e-commerce platforms for non-compliance with local compliance with local laws. Judgment – The court emphasized that platforms must ensure compliance with applicable laws while selling products. Significance – It reinforced the responsibility of e-commerce platforms to ensure regulatory compliance.

4. Right Against Unfair Pricing Practices 

Rule 5 (12) – E-commerce platforms should not offer deep discounts or unfair pricing to Favor certain sellers or products. Pricing should be transparent, and consumers should not be misled by hidden charges.

To establish a formal grievance redressal mechanism, in 2020 E-Commerce Rules have introduced a critical reform by requiring e-commerce platforms. 

However, with these many rights of the consumers, there are few challenges that hinders the ability to fully protect consumers in the digital marketplace. Those are Lack of Uniform Enforcement, Limited Consumer Awareness, Cross-Border Transactions and Technological and Logistical Challenges.

Food delivery platforms have become an important part of everyday consumer life, but they have also created new kinds of consumer problems. In many cases, the consumer does not get what was promised at the time of ordering. The food may arrive late, the wrong item may be delivered, the food may be unsafe or of poor quality, or the complaint may remain unresolved for days. These problems are not minor inconveniences; in legal terms, they may amount to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The idea of deficiency in service is very relevant here because the consumer pays not only for food, but for the complete service of ordering, packing, delivery, and redressal. When a platform advertises quick delivery, accurate order fulfillment, and easy complaint resolution, it creates a clear expectation in the mind of the consumer. If the platform fails to meet that expectation, the consumer suffers loss, inconvenience, and sometimes even mental agony. Therefore, delays in delivery or wrong delivery are not just operational mistakes; they can be treated as legal faults in the performance of service.

Another important issue is food safety. A food delivery platform is expected to ensure that the food reaches the consumer in a safe and hygienic condition. If food is contaminated, stale, improperly packed, or handled carelessly during transit, the consumer is left with a product that is not fit for consumption. In such cases, the problem is not only with the restaurant that prepared the food, but also with the platform that arranged and delivered it. This makes the platform an important participant in the chain of responsibility.

Redressal is also a major part of the discussion. Many consumers do not stop at the first complaint; they wait for a refund, replacement, or apology. But when the platform responds slowly, gives automated replies, or shifts blame to the restaurant or delivery partner, the consumer is left without an effective remedy. This delay in grievance handling itself becomes part of the deficiency. A service cannot be said to be proper if the consumer has no meaningful way to complain and obtain relief.

In this way, food delivery disputes show that consumer protection in the digital economy is not just about delivery of goods, but about the quality of the entire service experience. The law must therefore look beyond the restaurant and examine the role of the platform as well. When the platform controls ordering, payment, tracking, and customer support, it cannot completely escape responsibility. For this reason, food delivery platforms can be held liable for deficiency in service when they fail in any essential part of their duty to the consumer.

Food delivery platforms have become an essential part of modern consumer life but with that convenience comes responsibility. When a consumer faces delay in delivery, receives the wrong or substituted item, is given unsafe food or is left waiting for redressal, it is not just a casual mistake but a real failure in service. Such failures show that the platform has not met the standard of care expected under consumer law.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is important because it gives consumers a way to question these failures and seek relief. At the same time, the key main objectives of the statutory framework itself are protection of consumer rights, prevent exploitation, safety assurance and speedy redressal. As an evolution, the adaptation of such online food delivery platforms erodes the essence of the core legislature. 

• India Brand Equity Foundation. Online Food Delivery: Transforming Consumer Behaviour and Market Trends. October 23, 2024. https://www.ibef.org/blogs/online-food-delivery-transforming-consumer-behaviour-and-market-trends.

  
  

• Neelam Chawla, Basanta Kumar, “E-Commerce and Consumer Protection in India: The Emerging Trend” https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04884-3 

  
  

• The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) guidelines on e-commerce https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/groups/wggna/GuideByChapters/Chapter_13.pdf

  
  

•  CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY REPORT F. No. CCPA/2/31/2024-CСРА

  
  

• Kiran R. Mehta, The Effectiveness of 2020 E-Commerce Rules in Protecting Consumer Rights, OCT. 2024 VOL.3, NO.10

  
  

• Consumer Lawyer. How Do Consumer Protection Laws Apply to Online Food Delivery Services. Accessed May 3, 2026. https://consumerlawyer.in/legal-services/chennai/how-do-consumer-protection-laws-apply-to-online-food-delivery-services.