A Delhi consumer commission held India Cakes Private Limited guilty of service deficiency for failing to deliver a birthday cake for a woman’s grandmother. It also noted the company refused a refund, falsely claiming a previously attempted delivery.
A Delhi consumer commission has found India Cakes Private Limited guilty of deficiency in service for failing to deliver a birthday cake that was ordered for a woman’s grandmother, and then refusing to refund the payment on the claim that delivery had allegedly been attempted.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South-II), Delhi held that an online delivery platform cannot escape responsibility after accepting the customer’s money, subsequently demanding additional delivery charges, and then failing to complete the delivery.
The Commission directed the company to pay the complainants more than Rs.5,000, comprising a refund of the amount paid, compensation for harassment, and litigation costs. The payment was ordered to be made within 60 days.
The order was passed by a bench led by President Monika Aggarwal Srivastava and Member Ritu Garodia in a complaint filed by Priyanka Bhardwaj and Smita Kumari alias Preeti Singh.
The dispute began with an online order placed on February 9, 2024 for a half-kilogram pineapple cake and a bouquet of six mixed roses. The items were to be delivered on the same day to the complainants’ grandmother in Sultanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, with the message: “Happy Birthday Nani”.
According to the complaint, the company advertised free same-day delivery on its website. After placing the order, the complainants paid Rs.756 through UPI and received an order confirmation. However, within minutes, the company demanded an additional delivery charge of Rs.275, claiming the delivery location was far from its delivery centre. Despite raising objections and requesting cancellation, the complainants ultimately paid the extra amount due to the urgency of the occasion.
Later the same evening, the company emailed that the order had been processed for delivery. Despite this assurance, the cake and flowers never reached the grandmother. The complainants stated that when they contacted the company, they were initially told that the destination was too far and that a refund was being processed. The next day, they again sought cancellation and a refund.
Two days later, IndiaCakes sent another email claiming that its delivery personnel had attempted delivery but the recipient had refused to accept the order, and on that basis refused to refund the payment.
The Commission observed that the invoice issued at the time of booking did not mention any additional delivery charges. It also noted that the demand for Rs.275 was raised only after the order had already been placed and paid for.
Crucially, the Commission reviewed audio recordings submitted by the complainants. It held that the recordings showed the delivery personnel returned without completing delivery due to the distance involved. The recordings, the Commission said, also indicated that a refund had been assured. As a result, the Commission concluded that the company’s later assertion that the recipient had refused delivery was not supported by the evidence on record.
The bench further stated that the complainants had not been informed in advance about any failure to deliver, and that they had to follow up repeatedly through emails and telephone calls.
Since the complainants had paid the full amount for the cake and bouquet meant for a special occasion but received nothing, the Commission ruled that the company’s conduct amounted to deficiency in service.
Accordingly, IndiaCakes was directed to,
- Refund Rs.1,031 (including the original order amount and the additional delivery charge) with 7% interest, and
- Pay Rs.2,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment, and
- Pay Rs.2,000 towards litigation expenses.
The Commission ordered that the entire amount be paid within 60 days. If the payment was not made within that time, it would carry 8% interest from the date of the order until realization.
Case Title: Priyanka Bhardwaj & Anr. v. India Cakes Private Limited