38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, February 22, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Business

Court orders Zomato to pay Rs 60000 for not delivering Rs 130 Momos

By Jhanak Sharma      15 July, 2024 01:58 PM      0 Comments
Court orders Zomato to pay Rs 60000 for not delivering Rs 130 Momos

Karnataka: In a significant ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dharwad, Karnataka, has ruled in favor of Sheethal, a woman who did not receive her momos order placed through Zomato in 2023. The courts decision highlighted Zomatos failure to act promptly on the customers complaint.

Sheethal had placed an order for momos on August 31, 2023, and received a delivery confirmation. However, the momos never arrived. Despite reaching out to both the restaurant and Zomato for a resolution, she received no response. Zomato initially requested 72 hours to investigate but did not follow up. Frustrated by the lack of action, Sheethal filed a legal notice against Zomato in September 2023.

In court, Zomato denied any wrongdoing. However, the court noted that Zomatos months of inaction contradicted their initial request for time to resolve the issue. Eventually, in May 2024, Zomato refunded Sheethal the original cost of the momos, which was Rs 133.25.

Court Orders Zomato to Pay Rs 60,000 to Customer

The court found Zomato deficient in service and liable for the inconvenience caused to Sheethal. It ordered Zomato to pay her Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental stress and Rs 10,000 to cover her legal expenses, bringing the total award to Rs 60,000.

Consumer Courts Order

The commission stated, Zomato is carrying out their business of supplying materials in response to the online orders placed by the customer. Despite receipt of the purchase money, Zomato did not deliver the required product to the complainant. By looking into these facts of the case on hand in our opinion Op no. 1 (Zomato) alone is liable to answer the claim of the complainant.

Eshappa K Bhute, president of the commission, ordered Zomato to pay Sheethal Rs 50,000 as compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to her and Rs 10,000 towards her litigation cost.

This ruling emphasizes the responsibility of service providers to ensure timely and effective resolution of customer grievances, highlighting the potential consequences of neglecting customer complaints.



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Lawyers services not covered under Consumer Protection Act: SC Lawyers services not covered under Consumer Protection Act: SC

The Supreme Court ruled that lawyer services are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, as their profession requires specialized skills, education, and training.

Consumer Court upholds penalty against Uber for abandoning passenger mid-trip [Read Order] Consumer Court upholds penalty against Uber for abandoning passenger mid-trip [Read Order]

Punjab Consumer Court upholds penalty against Uber for driver abandoning passenger mid-trip, orders Rs. 15,000 compensation and remittance of Rs. 7,500 appeal deposit.

Court orders Zomato to pay Rs 60000 for not delivering Rs 130 Momos Court orders Zomato to pay Rs 60000 for not delivering Rs 130 Momos

Court orders Zomato to pay Rs 60,000 for not delivering a Rs 130 momos order, highlighting the importance of timely customer grievance resolution.

SC dismisses plea for directions to mandate doctors to specify side effects of drugs SC dismisses plea for directions to mandate doctors to specify side effects of drugs

SC dismisses plea to mandate doctors disclose drug side effects; cites impracticality, upholds reliance on manufacturers’ inserts for information.

TRENDING NEWS

us-sc-strikes-down-trumps-global-tariffs-rules-ieepa-does-not-authorize-president-to-impose-duties
Trending International
US SC Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs, Rules IEEPA Does Not Authorize President to Impose Duties [Read Order]

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s global tariffs, ruling that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose import duties.

21 February, 2026 02:45 PM
kerala-hc-issues-notice-to-cbfc-over-certification-of-the-kerala-story-2-goes-beyond
Trending Judiciary
Kerala HC Issues Notice to CBFC Over Certification of ‘The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond’

Kerala High Court issues notice to CBFC over certification of The Kerala Story 2, questions safeguards under Cinematograph Act; release not stayed.

21 February, 2026 02:50 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-declines-to-entertain-plea-over-alleged-anti-muslim-remarks-by-assam-cm-says-approach-hc
Trending Judiciary
SC Declines to Entertain Plea Over Alleged Anti-Muslim Remarks by Assam CM, Says Approach HC

Supreme Court asks petitioners to approach Gauhati High Court over alleged hate speech by Assam CM, declines plea for FIRs and SIT probe.

16 February, 2026 02:52 PM
can-live-in-partner-be-prosecuted-under-section-498a-ipc-sc-to-decide-scope-of-husband-in-cruelty-law
Trending Judiciary
Can Live-In Partner Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC? SC To Decide Scope Of ‘Husband’ In Cruelty Law [Read Order]

Supreme Court to decide if a man in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty. Case to impact scope of “husband”.

16 February, 2026 03:33 PM
sc-sets-aside-anticipatory-bail-granted-to-absconding-murder-accused-in-madhya-pradesh-political-rivalry-case
Trending Judiciary
SC Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Granted To Absconding Murder Accused In Madhya Pradesh Political Rivalry Case [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail to absconding murder accused in MP political rivalry case, calls HC order perverse and unjustified.

16 February, 2026 03:59 PM
places-of-worship-act-does-not-protect-illegal-encroachments-on-government-land-madras-hc
Trending Judiciary
Places of Worship Act Does Not Protect Illegal Encroachments on Government Land: Madras HC [Read Order]

Madras High Court rules that Places of Worship Act, 1991 does not protect temples built on encroached government land; eviction upheld in Ramanathapuram case.

16 February, 2026 04:18 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email