Gaurav Rai
New member
- Company Name
- Bistro
- Product Name
- Food
- Loss Amount
- 296
- Ratings
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION**GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR (NOIDA)**
IN THE MATTER OF:
Complainant:
Gaurav Rai
308, Oh my place, sector 141
7838289525
9797gra@gmail.com
Versus
Opposite Party:
Bistro (Food Delivery Platform)
003, Tower Daisy, Paramount Floraville, Sector 137, Nepz Post Office, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201305
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
That the Complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, having ordered food through the Opposite Party's platform.
That on 6th June, 2026, the Complainant placed a food order on the Bistro app bearing Order ID: ORD64223700327, which was a prepaid transaction — meaning full payment was collected upfront by the Opposite Party at the time of placing the order.
That the Complainant provided their complete and accurate delivery address, including flat number, building name, and locality, leaving no ambiguity regarding the delivery location.
That the Complainant was unwell and hungry at the time of placing the order and was dependent on this delivery for their meal.
That after approximately 40 minutes, upon checking the app, the Complainant discovered the order had been marked as "Cancelled"— without any prior intimation, phone call, doorbell ring, or knock on the door by the delivery person.
That the Complainant's building is an open-access residential building where delivery personnel from all other platforms and services regularly access and deliver goods directly to the doorstep without any obstruction.
That upon contacting the Opposite Party's customer care, the representative claimed the delivery person's call went unanswered— however, the Complainant received no incoming call, no missed call notification, and no SMS on their registered mobile number.
That even accepting the Opposite Party's claim for argument's sake, a reasonable delivery person was duty-bound to **ring the doorbell or knock on the flat door**, which was entirely accessible, as is standard practice across all delivery services.
That the Opposite Party's customer care representative admitted they understood the grievance but refused to provide any remedy, citing "company policy."
That the Opposite Party **refused to redeliver the food and also refused to issue any refund, thereby retaining the Complainant's money without providing the service.
That the Opposite Party failed to provide any proof — no call log, no screenshot, no delivery attempt record — to substantiate their claim that a delivery attempt was made.
---
2. GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT
i. Deficiency in Service
The Opposite Party collected full payment but failed to deliver the order, which constitutes clear deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
i. Unfair Trade Practice
Cancelling a prepaid order without genuine delivery attempt and refusing refund amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act.
iii. Negligence
The delivery person failed to follow standard delivery protocols — no doorbell, no knock, no door visit — despite the location being fully accessible.
iv. Unsubstantiated Claims
The Opposite Party made a claim of "call not connected" without providing any call logs or evidence, while the Complainant has no record of any incoming call.
v. Mental Agony and Harassment
The Complainant was sick, hungry, and in a vulnerable condition. The Opposite Party's failure caused unnecessary physical discomfort and mental distress.
---
3. RELIEF SOUGHT
In light of the above facts and grounds, the Complainant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to direct the Opposite Party to:
1. Refund the full order amount of ₹296 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of transaction till actual payment.
2. Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and physical suffering caused to the Complainant who was unwell at the time.
3. Pay ₹5,000 towards the cost of filing this complaint and litigation expenses.
4. Pass any other order this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and just in the interest of justice.
---
4. DECLARATION
I, Gaurav Rai, the Complainant above named, do hereby solemnly declare that the facts stated in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Place:Noida
Date:06 June 2026
Signature of Complainant
Gaurav Rai
IN THE MATTER OF:
Complainant:
Gaurav Rai
308, Oh my place, sector 141
7838289525
9797gra@gmail.com
Versus
Opposite Party:
Bistro (Food Delivery Platform)
003, Tower Daisy, Paramount Floraville, Sector 137, Nepz Post Office, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201305
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
That the Complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, having ordered food through the Opposite Party's platform.
That on 6th June, 2026, the Complainant placed a food order on the Bistro app bearing Order ID: ORD64223700327, which was a prepaid transaction — meaning full payment was collected upfront by the Opposite Party at the time of placing the order.
That the Complainant provided their complete and accurate delivery address, including flat number, building name, and locality, leaving no ambiguity regarding the delivery location.
That the Complainant was unwell and hungry at the time of placing the order and was dependent on this delivery for their meal.
That after approximately 40 minutes, upon checking the app, the Complainant discovered the order had been marked as "Cancelled"— without any prior intimation, phone call, doorbell ring, or knock on the door by the delivery person.
That the Complainant's building is an open-access residential building where delivery personnel from all other platforms and services regularly access and deliver goods directly to the doorstep without any obstruction.
That upon contacting the Opposite Party's customer care, the representative claimed the delivery person's call went unanswered— however, the Complainant received no incoming call, no missed call notification, and no SMS on their registered mobile number.
That even accepting the Opposite Party's claim for argument's sake, a reasonable delivery person was duty-bound to **ring the doorbell or knock on the flat door**, which was entirely accessible, as is standard practice across all delivery services.
That the Opposite Party's customer care representative admitted they understood the grievance but refused to provide any remedy, citing "company policy."
That the Opposite Party **refused to redeliver the food and also refused to issue any refund, thereby retaining the Complainant's money without providing the service.
That the Opposite Party failed to provide any proof — no call log, no screenshot, no delivery attempt record — to substantiate their claim that a delivery attempt was made.
---
2. GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT
i. Deficiency in Service
The Opposite Party collected full payment but failed to deliver the order, which constitutes clear deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
i. Unfair Trade Practice
Cancelling a prepaid order without genuine delivery attempt and refusing refund amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Act.
iii. Negligence
The delivery person failed to follow standard delivery protocols — no doorbell, no knock, no door visit — despite the location being fully accessible.
iv. Unsubstantiated Claims
The Opposite Party made a claim of "call not connected" without providing any call logs or evidence, while the Complainant has no record of any incoming call.
v. Mental Agony and Harassment
The Complainant was sick, hungry, and in a vulnerable condition. The Opposite Party's failure caused unnecessary physical discomfort and mental distress.
---
3. RELIEF SOUGHT
In light of the above facts and grounds, the Complainant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to direct the Opposite Party to:
1. Refund the full order amount of ₹296 with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of transaction till actual payment.
2. Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and physical suffering caused to the Complainant who was unwell at the time.
3. Pay ₹5,000 towards the cost of filing this complaint and litigation expenses.
4. Pass any other order this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and just in the interest of justice.
---
4. DECLARATION
I, Gaurav Rai, the Complainant above named, do hereby solemnly declare that the facts stated in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Place:Noida
Date:06 June 2026
Signature of Complainant
Gaurav Rai