ShreeRaj Dusa, product designer Self-initiated concept. Not affiliated with Zomato.

Where’s my raita?

When an item goes missing on Zomato, a chatbot guesses who’s lying. I designed a 10-second pack check at the restaurant that turns the guess into a lookup.

My role
Product designer, solo
Platforms
Customer app and restaurant partner app
Methods
Desk research, review mining, affinity mapping, flows
Year and read
2026, 2-minute read
01 The problem

When an item goes missing, nobody can prove what was packed

So Zomato’s support bot has to guess. Honest customers get a coupon and a template reply, and restaurants pay for claims they can’t contest.

No record of what was packedNo reason givenNo easy way to a person
Today: the outcome

No reason, a coupon, then an email. Riya can’t tell if she was disbelieved or just unlucky.

Proposed: the outcome

A reason she can believe. Her money goes where she chooses, and the restaurant sees the same record.

Watch the 50-second walkthrough

With voice-over and subtitles.
02 Why it matters

The anger isn’t about the food. It’s about what happens after

31 of 40

recent negative reviews I coded were about support, refunds or ignored proof, not the food.

My review coding, Trustpilot
50–70%

of disputed customer–rider cases end with Zomato refunding the customer.

Zomato CEO, Outlook Business
Critical

is how Play Store analysis rates the support chatbot loop with no escalation.

Quash

The seal proves nobody opened the bag. Nothing proves what went in.

How might wemake what was packed visible to everyone, so a missing item is settled by checking a record instead of judging a person?

03 The solution

Create the proof at the packing counter, not after the meal

One shared record, from counter to claim. A tick only counts when the bag photo shows the item.

1

Pack check

The order ticket becomes a tick list on the counter tablet, plus one bag photo.

2

Packed and sealed

Riya sees what was packed before the bag arrives.

3

Claim with evidence

The claim checks the record and explains the answer.

04 Impact

Fewer arguments, and customers who come back

This is a concept, so these are the metrics I’d track, not results.

PrimaryClaims settled without a person

Shows the record removes the guessing.

PrimaryRe-orders within 14 days after a claim

The business case: trust kept, customer kept.

RestaurantRefunds restaurants contest

Shows restaurants can finally answer a claim.

05 Deep dive

The full research, rules and reasoning

For anyone who wants the evidence behind the story. Open any section.

ContextThe market and why this problem
02 Context

Zomato is charging more per order, while trust after a bad order wears thin

Every extra rupee on the bill raises the cost of a bad experience. That’s why I looked at what happens when an order goes wrong, rather than at the fees.

Platform fee per order, before GST
ThePrint, Storyboard18
A zero-commission rival is here

Rapido moved its food app Ownly into its main app in July 2026, pitching no platform fee.

NewsBytes
Support is now mostly AI

Zomato’s platform Nugget handles 15M+ conversations a month and cut support cost from $20M to $9M a year.

Digital Terminal
Why not fix the fees?

Fees are a pricing decision; no screen makes ₹14.90 feel smaller. Missing items are where design can change the outcome for everyone.

Research and sourcesStore data, complaint coding and source cards
03 Research

Three data sources, my own review coding, and a benchmark

Survey and app-store data to size the problem, reviews I read and coded to understand it, and a benchmark to check whether a fix already exists. All desk research; primary research is planned in Impact.

Survey data

LocalCircles: 79,000+ responses across 359 districts.

Quant

App store data

Rating, 1-star share and defect themes from 41,727 reviews.

Quant

Review mining

40 recent negative reviews, read and coded into 9 themes.

QuantQual

Stakeholders

What the CEO, restaurant bodies and the regulator said.

Qual

Benchmark

How Zomato and DoorDash handle missing items today.

Qual

Straight from the source

Every card links to where I read it. Reviews are paraphrased and initialled to protect reviewers.

4.57
Google Play 14.1M ratings, yet 17.8% of reviews per release are 1-star (Quash)
4.68
App Store 128.4K ratings, Feb 2026 (AppGoblin)
1.2
Trustpilot 1,087 reviews, 87% 1-star (Trustpilot)
N. P.India, Jul 2026
1

Ordered two items, received one. Shared photos, screenshots and a recording of the restaurant admitting the mistake. The refund was still refused.

TrustpilotView source
P. S. H.India, Jun 2026
1

Three items worth about ₹400 were missing. Support offered no resolution and refused to pass the chat to an escalation team.

TrustpilotView source
Reddit userr/bangalore thread

An item was missing and the refund came back as Zomato Money. Only ₹40, but it made them not want to order again.

RedditView thread
Restaurant sideMediaNama, on refund rules

Restaurants absorb refund losses, but have no way to verify or challenge the claims behind them.

NewsRead article
Zomato CEOPodcast, via Outlook Business

Some customers fake claims, even with AI-edited photos, so disputes are judged with an internal karma score.

NewsRead article

Store ratings are high because millions of orders go fine. The complaints cluster where something goes wrong, which is exactly where this case study focuses.

56%

of Indian delivery-app users got damaged or spilled food in the past year.

LocalCircles, 79k responses
7,000+

consumer grievances against food delivery apps registered in 2024–25.

Govt. reply in Lok Sabha
17.8%

of Zomato’s Android reviews per release are 1-star (median), behind a 4.57★ rating.

Quash, Sep 2026
50–70%

of disputed customer–rider cases end with Zomato refunding the customer.

Zomato CEO, Outlook Business

31 of 40 complaints are about what happens after the order goes wrong

40 recent 1–2 star reviews, coded by me. Bars show how many of the 40 mention each theme; one review can carry several.

Support failed: bot loop, scripted replies
25
Refund denied, partial or credit only
17
Wrong or missing items
10
Late delivery
9
Food quality or spillage
7
Rider or address problems
7
Cancellation, fees or price
7
Restaurant and rider blame each other
5
Shared photo proof, still denied
4

9 of the 10 missing-item reviews also describe a support or refund failure. The missing raita starts the anger; the bot conversation turns it into a 1-star review.

40 consecutive reviews from Trustpilot pages 4–5, Jun–Jul 2026. Trustpilot skews negative, so this sizes themes within complaints, not across all orders. Quash independently lists “help and support flow broken: chatbot loop, no agent escalation” as the critical defect theme in Play Store reviews (source).

SynthesisAffinity map of 40 complaints
04 Synthesis

Affinity mapping turned 40 complaints into four patterns

I grouped what reviewers, restaurants and the data said. Notes are paraphrased; counts come from my review coding.

Can’t reach a person 25 of 40

Chat agents disconnected without fixing anything, then told me to email.Review, Jul 2026
Bot promised a call within 30 minutes. Three days later, nothing.Review, May 2026
Asked to escalate. The request was refused.Review, Jun 2026
Critical Play Store defect: chatbot loop, no agent escalation.Quash, Sep 2026

Money comes back wrong 17 of 40

Wrong order worth ₹394. Offered ₹188 back or ₹190 off the next order.Review, Jul 2026
Bot offered a small coupon instead of a refund.Review, Jul 2026
Missing item refunded as Zomato Money, not to my card.Reddit, r/bangalore

Proof doesn’t count 4 of 40

Sent photos, screenshots and a call recording. Refund still refused.Review, Jul 2026
Asked for a photo, then an email, then no reply.Review, Jun 2026
Some customers now fake claims with AI-edited photos.Zomato CEO
Complaint photo upload fails or gets rejected.Quash defect theme

Blame ping-pong 5 of 40

Rider said to contact the restaurant; he couldn’t do anything.Review, Jul 2026
Restaurant admitted the miss on a call, then denied it after my rating.Review, Jul 2026
Refunds get deducted for claims we can’t verify or contest.Restaurant side, MediaNama
CustomerRestaurantZomato or platform data

The failure is in the follow-up

The missing item is a small loss. Being disbelieved by a bot is what drives people away.

Evidence arrives too late

Proof only appears after the meal, where it’s easy to fake and easy to dismiss.

No shared record

Each side blames the other because nobody holds a version all three trust.

In fairness to today’s system: Nugget handles 15M+ conversations a month and resolves most of them, and automation works well for predictable complaints (Storyboard18). Fraud is real too (Outlook Business). The gap is the small share of disputes where nobody has evidence. This design doesn’t replace the bot; it gives the bot evidence to work with.

Customers

Want to be believed, fast

  • Reaching a person takes several tries or an email.
  • Refunds come as credit or coupons.
  • Photo proof gets the same template reply as none.

Storyboard18, review mining

Restaurants

Want a way to show they did their job

  • In most quality cases, the restaurant pays the refund.
  • A 50:50 refund-sharing rule was pushed, then put on hold.
  • No way to verify or contest a claim.

NewsKarnataka, Inc42

Zomato

Wants to stop fraud without losing customers

  • Some customers fake claims with edited photos.
  • Disputes are settled by an internal karma score.
  • When fault is unclear, Zomato often absorbs the cost.

Outlook Business

Persona and journeyWho it affects and where trust breaks
05 Problem

The seal proves nobody opened the bag. Nothing proves what went in.

How might wemake what was packed visible to everyone, so a missing item is settled by checking a record instead of judging a person?

Two people sit at either end of every claim

Composite personas built from the review mining and stakeholder research.

R

Riya, 27

Analyst in Hyderabad, orders 3–4 times a week

What happened
Her raita was missing. The bot offered Zomato Money and closed the chat.
Needs
To be believed quickly, without arguing or proving herself.
Then
Orders from the other app for a week.
I

Imran, 34

Packer at a busy biryani kitchen

What happened
A refund was deducted for an item he’s sure he packed.
Needs
Proof that protects the restaurant, without slowing the dinner rush.
Constraint
Packs 60+ bags a night; anything with typing won’t get used.

Composite personas from desk research, not interviews. Imran especially is an assumption to test: the restaurant visits planned in Impact come first.

Today, only one step of the journey can be trusted

Zomato’s Safely Sealed bags prove the bag wasn’t opened on the way. The first step leaves no record, so every ending is a guess.

Breaks trust

Restaurant packs

No record of which items went in.

Works today

Sealed, picked up

Tamper-proof bag covers the ride.

The moment

Item missing

Riya opens the bag at home.

Breaks trust

Bot chat, karma score

Preset replies; a hidden score decides who to believe.

Expecting dinnerCalmAnnoyedDisbelieved

Three endings, all guesses

Zomato Money

Not the original payment. Feels like a coupon, not a refund.

Copy-paste denial

No reason given, no human to ask.

Restaurant pays

Even when it packed the item, with no way to contest.

Where trust breaksWorks today

Safely Sealed: The News Minute. Karma score: Outlook Business.

BenchmarkHow others handle it
06 Benchmark

Others prove the ride or the photo. None proves the pack without hardware

DoorDash already showed that checking an order at the counter works; its answer is a smart scale. Indian kitchens need something free that fits on the tablet they already use.

ApproachBag not openedWhat was packedCustomer sees whyExtra hardware
Zomato Safely Sealed bagsProvenNoNoBags
Zomato Nugget AI supportNoNoTemplate repliesNone
DoorDash photo at claim, merchant disputesNoCustomer’s photo onlyPartlyNone
DoorDash SmartScale (Panera: 42% fewer missing-item reports)NoBy weightNoScale per counter
Proposed: pack checkSeal checkTicks and photoYesNone

DoorDash SmartScale, BusinessWire; DoorDash merchant disputes; DoorDash missing-items help.

All screens and flowsEvery today vs proposed screen, with annotations
07 Solution

Packed & Proven: one record from the counter to the claim

Three flows share a single record created at the packing counter. On each “Proposed” screen, the red outline marks what changed.

Built with Zomato’s open-source Sushi tokens

red 500#EF4F5F, buttons
z_red#E23744, brand
green 600#24963F, success
coal#1C1C1C, text
grey 700#696969, secondary
grey 200#E8E8E8, dividers
red 50#FFF6F7, tints
shadow z8cards, sheets

Type scale and components

z600 24Raita was packed
z400 18Which item is the problem?
z200 14Body and buttons
z100 12Captions and meta
ButtonOutline4.2Tag

Tokens from Sushi’s public web package (sushiweb, ISC licence): colour scales, type sizes on a 4px spacing grid, and z4–z32 shadows. Sushi’s typeface, Okra, isn’t publicly hosted, so the page falls back to Archivo. Screen layouts are my own.

Restaurant partner app, counter tablet

Pack check: catch the miss before it leaves

The order ticket already on the tablet becomes a tick list. One photo of the open bag, then seal.

123

Swipe to see the full tablet

  1. Ticks reuse the order ticketItems are already on the counter tablet. One tap per item, plus “Out of stock” and “Swapped” states. A swap asks Riya first: accept it or take a refund. No answer by handover means a refund.
  2. A tick counts only with the photoOne overhead shot, small items on top. A tick the photo can’t confirm doesn’t protect the restaurant.
  3. Mistakes caught at the counterAn unticked item triggers a nudge before handover, the cheapest place to fix a miss.

Shown on the order tablet at the packing counter. In kitchens where the tablet sits at the cashier, the same screen would run on a phone on the packing shelf. Which setup is common, and who holds it, is the first question for restaurant visits.

Customer app, while the rider travels

Packed card: set expectations before the bag arrives

Riya sees what was packed and sealed, then answers one question at the door.

Today

Nothing to check against. Riya finds out alone at the table, with nothing that says what should be there.

Proposed

A baseline before the bag opens. Riya knows what to check, and the record exists if something’s wrong.

123
  1. One tap at handoverAsked while the rider is still at the door, so a torn seal is flagged in the moment instead of argued about later.
  2. Built on what already existsUses the Safely Sealed bags Zomato already ships. Skipped for restaurants that don’t use them.
  3. Feeds the claimThe answer becomes one of three checks if Riya reports an item later. A torn seal points to the ride, not the kitchen.
Customer app, after delivery

Report an item: check the record before anyone argues

Riya picks the exact item. The system checks the pack record, the seal answer and the photo, then explains its decision.

Today: reporting

A generic menu, then a blank box. The system learns nothing structured, so all it can do afterwards is guess.

Proposed: reporting

Item-level and structured. The claim is checked against the pack record in seconds. Photos, if needed, use the in-app camera only.

Today: the outcome

No reason, a coupon, then an email. Riya can’t tell if she was disbelieved or just unlucky.

Proposed: the outcome

A reason she can believe. Her money goes where she chooses, and the restaurant sees the same record.

How a claim is checked

Three checks in order. Every path ends with an answer for Riya inside the app. Unclear cases are audited afterwards, not while she waits, and that audit is what stops a restaurant from ticking everything.

  1. Was the item ticked at packing?From the pack check
    No
    Refund now, restaurant paysRiya gets a reason; the restaurant sees its own empty tick.
  2. Was the seal intact at the door?From the doorstep check
    No
    Refund now, rider-side reviewZomato reviews the handover; the restaurant isn’t charged.
  3. Is the item clearly visible in the photo?A tick only counts when it is
    Yes
    Show what was packedRiya sees the photo, then taps “Found it” or “Ask a person”.
  4. The record can’t settle itTick present, photo unclear
    Refund Riya now, audit laterZomato covers it until a person reviews in the background. The restaurant is charged only if the audit finds the item wasn’t packed, and repeat failures lower its pack trust.

Zomato’s existing customer-history checks still apply before any instant refund, so repeat claimers don’t get a free pass.

123
  1. Show the evidence, not a verdictRiya sees the same photo a reviewer would. No accusation, no template.
  2. A dignified way outIf it was under the biryani box, “Found it” closes the claim without anyone saying she was wrong.
  3. A person is always one tap awayThe reviewer opens the case with ticks, photo and seal answer attached, and Riya sees when to expect an answer.
123
  1. The same record on both sidesImran sees exactly what Riya’s claim was checked against.
  2. Charged only on your own evidenceCharged straight away only for its own empty tick; unclear cases are charged only after a failed audit. That answers their biggest complaint about refund sharing.
  3. A fair way to push back“Contest with a note” sends it to a person instead of an automatic deduction.
Decisions and risksWhat I chose against, trade-offs and edge cases
08 Decisions

Five decisions shaped the design, and what I chose against

Prove the pack, not the customer

Evidence is created where the mistake happens, so honest customers don’t have to prove themselves.

Chose against: stricter photo rules at claim time, which puts the burden on the person who was wronged.

Explain every outcome

“The restaurant didn’t tick your raita” is believable. “We regret” is not, even when the answer is the same.

Chose against: faster silent auto-refunds. Speed without a reason still feels like luck, and invites abuse.

Prevent at the counter, not just judge later

The unticked-item nudge fixes mistakes before the rider leaves, the cheapest place to fix them.

Chose against: AI matching on claim photos, which can’t see an item that was never there.

A tick isn’t proof on its own

The obvious loophole: if unticked means the restaurant pays, tick everything. So a tick only counts when the bag photo shows the item, and every unclear case feeds a background audit that sets each restaurant’s pack trust. Ticks from low-trust restaurants stop protecting them.

Chose against: trusting ticks alone (gameable), and sending every unclear case to live human review (slow for Riya, and the cost this design is meant to remove).

Let the customer choose where money goes

Zomato Money instantly, or the original payment in a few days: a choice, not a trap.

Chose against: credit-only refunds, one of the most repeated complaints in my review sample.

The biggest risk is the packing counter during a dinner rush

If the pack check slows Imran down, restaurants will skip it. Every trade-off protects adoption first.

RiskHow the design handles it
Packers are rushedOne tap per item, one photo, no typing. Roll out first to restaurants with the most disputes, where it saves them money.
A photo can’t show inside a closed boxThe record proves which containers went in, not the quantity inside. Quantity and taste stay out of scope.
Fake or AI-edited photosClaim photos open the in-app camera only, with a timestamp. No gallery uploads.
A restaurant ticks everything to avoid payingTicks only count with a photo that shows the item. Unclear cases refund the customer first, paid by Zomato, and go to a background audit. The restaurant is charged only if the audit fails, and repeated failures lower pack trust until its ticks stop protecting it.
Honest customer, item ticked but truly missingIf the photo doesn’t clearly show it, she’s refunded without being asked to check again. “Check once more” only appears when the item is plainly visible.
Nobody answers the doorFor leave-at-door orders, the seal question appears when Riya next opens the app. If she skips it, that check counts as unknown and the flow goes straight to the photo.
Item out of stock or swappedThe pack check has “Out of stock” and “Swapped” states. Out-of-stock items are refunded automatically. A swap is never silent: Riya gets a prompt to accept it or take a refund, and no answer by handover defaults to a refund.
Refunds to the original payment cost moreInstant Zomato Money stays the first option; the original payment is a visible choice, not a hidden one.
Restaurants without sealed bagsThe pack record still works; the doorstep seal question is skipped.

Out of scope on purpose: the rider’s side of disputes (Zomato already runs a separate process for rider misconduct, and it deserves its own study), platform fees, late deliveries and food quality.

Full metrics and research planAll metrics, guardrails and the validation plan
09 Impact

How I’d know it works: fewer arguments, and customers who come back

This is a concept, so these are proposed metrics, not results. The closest real-world signal is Panera’s 42% drop in missing-item reports with DoorDash’s scale; a tick-and-photo check is lighter, so I’d expect less and test it.

Back-of-envelope: what missing-item claims cost

Every input is an assumption you can change. In a real project these come from Zomato’s own data.

Claims per day–
Monthly cost of claims today–Refunds plus support, Zomato and restaurants combined
New monthly audit cost–
Net monthly cost avoided, across Zomato and restaurants–

Caveats. Most refund money is often paid by restaurants, not Zomato, so the saving is shared. Claims where the restaurant didn’t tick move cost from Zomato to the restaurant, which is a policy call to make with restaurant partners. And refunds to the original payment cost more than Zomato Money (payment reversals, and no re-order loop), which is why Zomato Money stays the first option.

MetricTypeWhy it matters
Missing-item claims per 1,000 ordersPrimaryPrevention at the counter should cut the claims themselves.
Claims settled without a personPrimaryShows the record removes the grey zone.
Time from claim to outcomePrimaryRiya cares about being believed quickly.
Re-orders within 14 days after a claimPrimaryThe business case: trust kept, customer kept.
Refunds restaurants contestRestaurantShows Imran can finally answer a claim.
Seconds added per order at packingGuardrailIf this rises, adoption falls.
Rejected claims later overturnedGuardrailCatches the system being too strict.

How I’d validate it

  1. Usability test the claim flow with 5 people who have reported a missing item.
  2. Time the pack check against today’s process at one real counter during a dinner rush.
  3. Pilot in one city with high-dispute restaurants, against a matched group without it.

Primary research I’d run next

  1. A 30–50 person survey: the last time an item was missing, what happened, and did you order again?
  2. Five interviews walking through real support-chat screenshots.
  3. Two restaurant visits to watch packing and ask how they fight a refund today.
LearningsWhat this project taught me
10 Learnings

What this project taught me

The loudest complaint isn’t always the right problem

Fees get the headlines, but design can’t change a price. Missing items were quieter and fully solvable.

Design for the honest majority, guard against the few

Moving evidence to the counter protects against fraud without treating every customer as a suspect.

A fix for one side has to pay the others

The pack check only works if restaurants use it, so it had to protect them from false claims, not just add a task.

SourcesEvery link used

Sources

Data as of October 2026. Review quotes are paraphrased.

  1. LocalCircles survey via BW Retail World
  2. Quash Release Health: Zomato
  3. Trustpilot reviews, page 4 and page 5
  4. Outlook Business: Zomato’s karma score
  5. Storyboard18: chatbots leave users stuck
  6. Digital Terminal: Nugget support costs
  7. Inc42: 50:50 refund sharing on hold
  8. NewsKarnataka: who pays for refunds
  9. MediaNama: CCPA probes refund policies
  10. The News Minute: Safely Sealed
  11. ThePrint: platform fee hike
  12. Storyboard18: fee history
  13. NewsBytes: Rapido Ownly
  14. BusinessWire: DoorDash SmartScale
  15. DoorDash: merchant error disputes
  16. Reddit r/bangalore thread