The Consumer Forum rejected a plea against a food outlet, questioning the complainants’ choice. It asked, “If strictly vegetarian, why order from a restaurant serving both veg and non-veg instead of a purely vegetarian one?”
The Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a complaint against a well-known food establishment, where a group of complainants alleged they were served non-vegetarian food despite explicitly requesting a vegetarian dish.
The panel determined that the complainants did not present sufficient evidence to support their claims and questioned their choice to order from an outlet that offers both vegetarian and non-vegetarian options.
The incident occurred on December 19, 2020, when the complainants ordered a plate of momos from a suburban Mumbai outlet. They claimed that despite specifying their preference for vegetarian food twice, they received chicken momos.
The total bill for their order, which included a soft drink, amounted to Rs 120.
Seeking compensation for mental trauma, emotional distress, and hurt religious sentiments, the complainants contacted the company’s head office in Kolkata and were eventually referred to the management in Mumbai. Although the local team apologized and expressed willingness to meet with the complainants, no settlement was reached.
Subsequently, the complainants issued a legal notice demanding Rs 6 lakh in compensation, alleging “grave negligence” in serving the incorrect dish.
Also Read: Wow Momo Cannot Claim Monopoly Over The Word ‘Wow’: Delhi High Court
The company, however, denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the complainants had ordered non-vegetarian food, as evidenced by the invoice. The company also accused the complainants of verbally and physically abusing the delivery employee.
Despite the situation, the outlet claimed to have offered a goodwill voucher worth Rs 1,200, which the complainants reportedly rejected while demanding Rs 3 lakh each.
Upon reviewing the case, the consumer forum found no conclusive proof that a vegetarian dish had been ordered. The invoice clearly indicated a non-vegetarian item. The commission noted that the photos of the dish submitted by the complainants did not clarify whether the momos were vegetarian.
The commission observed,
“If a non-veg order had been delivered… it ought to have contained only and only non-veg pieces therein. A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it,”
The panel further questioned the complainants’ claims regarding their religious sentiments, highlighting their failure to provide specific details such as the name of a priest or the rituals that were allegedly interrupted due to the incident.
The panel stated,
“If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why did they choose to order from a restaurant that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food, instead of ordering from an outlet that exclusively offers vegetarian dishes?”
With no solid evidence of negligence or misrepresentation by the company, the commission ultimately dismissed the complaint.