But I guess you had to make a long para about subjectivity hence you ignored the "ordered multiple times" part. There is a difference between bad food and rotten food.
No, I didn't ignore it at all. I am talking about how the service provider/restaurant is going to see it.. You say that the food is bad and say use words like "stale" or "rotten", but these are heavily abused words for food. Given the subjective nature of what is considered bad food by various people, how are they supposed to react to your claim? Furthermore, you mentioned that you threw away the food before calling swiggy.
Second, your example of Paytm vs Swiggy etc, I guess you don't understand how deals happen? Paytm or card or cash are transaction modes. They are not the counterparty. In your example, the restaurant is still the counterparty. In Swiggy's case, Swiggy is the counter-party. As to whether they are liable is an interesting case because.....
Each of the service providers in the chain has a role to play in the completion of the transaction and that makes them all parties with different responsibility . This includes your bank/wallet and the payment gateways ( and they are themselves aggregators with a different focus area). With cash, there is no additional party because you are the party. If your bank or wallet is declining a transaction, you don't blame the restaurant for it. Bottom-line, just because a service provider is handling your money in a transaction doesn't mean that they are responsible for the end goal of that money, but they all are all still responsible for specific areas of it.
The issue where you are struck is whether Swiggy as a delivery service is liable for the quality of the food that they deliver from the restaurant that you yourself selected. Common sense is probably enough to conclude that they are not liable. At least not unless they expressly advertise and take responsibility for it.
Third party aggregators by virtue of their business model are never liable.
Not true. They are liable for the core service they are provide. In the case of swiggy, they are liable to
1. Deliver food in a reasonable time frame.
2. Deliver all the food items ordered. (No missing items)
3. Deliver the food in good condition and by that I mean no spillages etc. not the quality of the food itself. Even if the restaurant is responsible for bad packing, it is swiggy that is responsible for mishaps once they decide to deliver it in that condition.
They are simply a platform for two different, maybe even distrusting parties to meet. They can set the rules about how people interact off each other on their platform.
Not necessary. You are thinking of just one specific use case which is escrow. There are other reasons for existence of third party aggregators. Even if you take example of swiggy, the reason for using them is not a trust issue with the restaurants, but because, even if you trust them and willing to pay them money in advance, many of them just don't have the capability to provide you home delivery. They fulfill a service that wan't there. Its the same for payment gateways. They don't exist because people don't trust banks, but because they provide a service of easily integrating a bunch of payment options.
But this leaves a question - Why should I even trust the third party aggregators at all ? The aggregators act in good faith and earn traction. They build trust over time. What this means is while companies like Uber are not inherently liable for a "bad experience with the cabbies" they do care. They compensate generously to make sure people are happy. That is why, when I talk to people into using Uber I verbally assure them - Don't worry if something happens Uber will take care of it. I did so in case of Swiggy too but no more.
There is no reason to trust them. And I definitely don't go trusting service providers just because they sometimes go beyond their obligations to appease customers here and there. I keep reasonable expectations which are line with their obligations. For example, If I have a missed item, I expect it to be replaced, but also that the issue is not repeated in future. I am looking for consistency in fulfilling obligations, not in taking care of it afterwards
Fourth, you also ignored the fact that I asked them the contact number of restaurant to raise this complain. But Swiggy ignored me. I can see why - restaurant owners will love to get a call about problems with their "delivery partner".
Not their obligation, I totally understand where you are coming from, but still not their obligation.
