Running a business, especially in today’s dynamic landscape, is not easy and full of rigmaroles. It may not be wrong to say that to solve problems related to society, a business faces thousands of more problems of its own, ranging from compliance to operability to profitability.

The rapid expansion of quick e-commerce platforms (including quick-service restaurants – QSRs) has introduced new kinds of charges/fees with innovative nomenclatures that end consumers must pay with every order. There is a strong sentiment across that these charges being levied by the e-commerce platforms are unfair and unreasonable. At the superficial level, the sentiment may seem justified, and the charges may seem unreasonable, too. However, once we delve deeper and see the nuances, things appear a lot different.

Convenience – A Luxury Turned Necessity

In today’s fast-paced world, the ease of getting a meal delivered to our doorstep or a grocery parcel within minutes has moved from being a luxury to a regular part of urban life. The moot question which arises is why one opts for the service through quick e-commerce?

While at one time, one may avail these services for the fulfilment of a “need”, at another time, one may avail them for the satisfaction of a “want”. There is a difference between these two situations; however, “convenience” is a common factor which is present in both. This “convenience” undoubtedly comes at a cost.

There cannot be any uniform definition of these charges, and their context may vary from platform to platform as per the nomenclature, usage, revenue model, and internal policies of a particular platform. For example – Handling Charges on Platform X may be levied by the Seller/Supplier/Restaurant, while on Platform Y, Handling Charges may be levied by Platform Y itself. Presently, the Government of India is looking into overhead charges levied upon the customers for cash-on-delivery orders by e-commerce platforms.

The main aim of this article is to examine, from a consumer law perspective, what charges can be levied and the convergence between consumer protection and business profitability.

Types of Charges in E-Commerce

Broadly speaking, these charges may be bifurcated into two categories for a better understanding:

1. Charges emanating from the sellers/suppliers/restaurants/stores, etc. – Thesechargesare exclusively fixed by the sellers/suppliers/restaurants who are selling their products through e-commerce platforms. These charges are displayed on the e-commerce platforms to the end users without any alterations. These charges may include packaging charges, container charges, handling charges, etc.

Seller’s Duty: As per Rule 6(5)(b) of the e-Commerce Rules 2020, any seller offering goods or services through a marketplace e-commerce entity is under a duty to provide total price in single figure of any good or service, along with the breakup price for the good or service, showing all the compulsory and voluntary charges such as delivery charges, postage and handling charges, conveyance charges and the applicable tax, as applicable.

Platform’s Liability: According to Rule 5(3)(e) of the e-Commerce Rules 2020, every marketplace e-commerce entity shall provide all information provided to it by sellers under sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 in a clear and accessible manner, displayed prominently to its users at the appropriate place on its platform.

From a consumer protection perspective, the key principles are transparency and fair disclosure. This ensures that consumers can make informed decisions without being misled by hidden or ambiguous fees.

With respect to the charges emanating from the sellers/suppliers/restaurants/stores, etc., the liability that may be attached to the e-commerce platform is limited to the extent of not displaying these charges as received at a conspicuous place on their platform. In other words, any grievance with regard to the charges falling under Category-I shall be against the sellers/suppliers/restaurants/stores, etc. and not against the e-Commerce platforms unless the grievance touches the liability with respect to non-disclosure of the said charges.

2. Charges levied by the e-commerce platforms – For efficient running, maintenance and sustenance, nominal charges are levied by e-commerce platforms. At times, many charges are levied for the extra efforts being put in or extra facilities being offered to the end user, which are in addition to the regular services. These charges may include Platform Fee, Handling Charge, Marketplace Fee, Service Fee, Late Night Fee, Rain Surge Fee, Convenience Charge, Small Cart Fee, etc.

The charges levied by the e-commerce are separate from delivery, packaging, or restaurant charges and go directly to the platform for maintaining technology, customer support, and logistics infrastructure. The e-Commerce platforms have to invest heavily in advanced technology systems, including mobile apps, AI-driven logistics, last-mile delivery management, and customer support infrastructure to make their platform and service better for the end User/Consumer.

Efficient running and maintenance of a business depend on balancing several key factors. For the sustenance of market standing in the long run, a business must necessarily engage in innovation to stay competitive. Ensuring productivity through effective use of resources, supported by adequate physical and financial assets, is equally vital. Reasonable profits are essential for survival and growth, while fulfilling social responsibilities secures long-term societal acceptance. Practical considerations, especially for the e-commerce platforms, such as the suitable locations, financing, physical facilities, logistics management, and availability of workforce, strengthen operations.

Keeping in mind the factors enumerated above and the nature of the business model of quick e-commerce, these charges form a part of the consideration that the end User pays for availing the “convenience” at the doorstep. As long as there is disclosure of these charges at the checkout page before the final payment is made and the end User knows or is aware of the “cost of convenience”, the charges cannot be plainly termed as unfair or unreasonable. The User always has the option to not avail such services being offered and look for an alternative. For example – when one books a movie ticket on Platform X, a convenience fee is charged. This fee is displayed at checkout, and the User is free to exercise the other alternative, i.e. visiting the cinema hall to reserve a seat and/or using another platform for completion of booking.

Judicial Precedents

Recently, in July 2025, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of PVR Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra¹, while considering the validity of convenience fees levied by cinema and online ticketing platforms, has categorically held that such charges form part of legitimate contractual consideration between private parties and that the platform’s business model was not illegitimate. Therefore, the same cannot be prohibited in the absence of specific statutory authority.

Also, in the matter of Mr Lalit Wadher vs. Zomato Ltd.², the Ld. Competition Commission of India, while considering allegations of unfair and excessive levies, held that the levy of various kinds of charges, viz., food charges, platform fees, delivery fees, tips, etc., does not appear to be unfair and discriminatory in nature.

Moreover, the Ld. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the matter of Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited v. Mr Madhira Mahendra Naga Sairam³, observed that the charges in the form of “Convenience Fee” are displayed to the Complainant/User and the User is fully aware of the procedure that is adopted by the Platform to book a ticket as well as of the fact that the charges are being levied for rendering the service of online booking for one’s “convenience” and held that there was no deficiency in service on part of the platform.

In sum and substance, therefore, as can be seen from the judicial precedents set forth hereinbefore, there is no element of illegality attached to the charges which fall under Category-II. However, their legality and fairness hinge on clear disclosure and consumer awareness, aligning with the broader goals of consumer protection laws.

Conclusion

While the initial sentiment may seem justified on a superficial level, delving deeper shows that the structure of these charges is legally sound and operationally justified. Though one might question the amount or the regular increment of amount of these charges but again that is something which is the sole prerogative of the platform for the services being offered through the platform. In essence, what appears at first to be an unreasonable burden is actually the “cost of convenience,” which users are free to accept or avoid.

Written by: Saksham Singh (Associate)