New Delhi: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North District, Delhi, has held Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which operates Swiggy, liable for displaying a misleading “cost for two” figure on its Dineout platform, and found the dining restaurant separately liable for illegally levying a mandatory service charge.
President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, along with Members Ashwani Kumar Mehta and Harpreet Kaur Charya, deciding Consumer Complaint No. DC/80/CC/422/2024 filed by Praveen Kumar Singh against Bundl Technologies (OP-1) and Themis Barbeque House (OP-2), recorded that the Swiggy Dineout listing had shown a “cost for two” of ₹1,500, whereas the final bill reflected a per-person buffet price of ₹1,050 for vegetarian and ₹1,100 for non-vegetarian, “approximately 40-47% over the quoted price.”
Rejecting Bundl Technologies' defence that it was merely an intermediary protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Commission held that the safe harbour is “expressly conditional on OP-1 satisfying the requirements of sub-section (2), clause (c)” of that provision, which requires an intermediary to “observe due diligence” while discharging its duties, and that OP-1 had failed to reconcile the “cost for two” figure with the accurate, itemised pricing already available to it.
The Commission held that the “cost for two” figure, continuing to be displayed “without correction or any prominent disclaimer,” fell within the definition of a misleading advertisement under Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Sections 2(11) and 2(47) of the Act, for which “both OPs . . . being the owner of the advertisement and OP-1 being the platform . . . are equally responsible.”
On the service charge issue, the Commission relied on the CCPA's guidelines dated 04.07.2022 and the Delhi High Court's judgment in National Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India, which held that “service charge and tips are voluntary payments by consumers and cannot be made compulsory or mandatory,” and noted that the High Court's interim order had directed restaurants to replace the term “Service Charge” with “Staff Contribution,” capped at 10% of the bill excluding GST, with clear disclosure that no further tip is required.
Finding that the restaurant's bill continued to describe the charge as “Service Charge” rather than “Staff Contribution” as directed, the Commission held that this “undisclosed” levy, made under a nomenclature the High Court had already directed to be discontinued, “constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2.”
Allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the restaurant to refund ₹3,988 for the price overcharge and ₹254 for the illegal service charge, both with 9% per annum interest from the date of payment, and directed both opposite parties, jointly and severally, to pay ₹1,00,000 towards mental agony, harassment, inconvenience and litigation costs, with 12% per annum penal interest if not paid within four weeks.
Case Title: Praveen Kumar Singh vs. Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
![Consumer Commission Directs Bus Operator to Pay ₹50,000 Compensation After Barat Reaches Wedding Destination at 3 AM Due to Breakdown [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2026/05/lj_7279_Consumer_Commission_Directs.webp)
