{
  "id": 2471444,
  "title": "Ordered 10-inch pizza, ‘got 7-inch’ instead, Uttarakhand man wins Rs 10,520 payout",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/22/ordered-10-inch-pizza-got-7-inch-instead-uttarakhand-man-wins-rs-10",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-08-22T01:30:02.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Indian Express",
    "slug": "the-indian-express",
    "url": "https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/ordered-10-inch-pizza-7-inch-uttarakhand-man-rs-10520-payout-10843322/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "An e-commerce food delivery service in Uttarakhand must pay Rs 10,520 to a customer after allegedly delivering a 7-inch pizza instead of the ordered 10-inch pizza, according to a consumer commission ruling. The commission found that the delivery of a pizza three inches smaller than ordered constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The complainant, who placed an order for a 10-inch pizza through a mobile application, was instead given a 7-inch pizza. Despite raising the issue with the customer support chat on the food delivery platform, a refund was not granted. The complainant attempted to resolve the matter through the National Consumer Helpline, CPGRAMS portal, and a legal notice, but no resolution was reached. The food delivery platform argued that it is merely an intermediary connecting users with third-party restaurants, but the commission held them responsible for the deficiency in service. The commission ordered the e-commerce platform and the eatery to jointly pay Rs 10,520, which includes Rs 505 for the pizza price, Rs 15 for delivery, Rs 5,000 for mental and physical harassment, and Rs 5,000 for litigation expenses.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [
    "Uttarakhand man ordered 10-inch pizza but received 7-inch instead",
    "Consumer commission ruled e-commerce platform liable for deficiency in service",
    "Rs 10,520 payout includes compensation for harassment and litigation"
  ],
  "editors_take": "The ruling sets a precedent that e-commerce food delivery services can be held liable for discrepancies in orders, even if they claim to be mere intermediaries between customers and restaurants.",
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}