The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Domino’s Pizza India and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited liable for serving an “unhygienic food item” after a customer allegedly found a dead bee in pizza, while reducing compensation from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10,000.
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Domino’s Pizza India and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited liable for providing an “unhygienic food item” after a customer alleged that a dead bee was found inside a pizza served at one of their outlets in Punjab.
While the state commission upheld the district consumer forum’s finding of deficiency in service against the fast-food chain, it reduced the compensation awarded from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10,000. The commission also ordered that the amount be deposited with the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, instead of being paid directly to the complainants.
The order was issued on May 6 by a bench consisting of Justice Daya Chaudhary and member Simarjot Kaur, while hearing an appeal filed by Jubilant FoodWorks Limited and Domino’s Pizza India challenging an earlier decision dated June 5, 2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar.
The matter arose from an incident on June 24, 2021, when advocate Gurpyar Singh and another customer visited a Domino’s outlet and ordered two pizzas and soft drinks worth Rs 1,060.94. According to the complaint, they allegedly discovered a dead bee or fly inside one of the pizzas while consuming it.
The complainants stated that they informed the restaurant staff immediately, but claimed the outlet manager told them not to create a disturbance in front of other customers and behaved rudely. One of the complainants later reportedly suffered stomach pain and vomiting and received medical treatment at the Government Multi-Speciality Hospital.
The incident was also discussed on X (formerly Twitter), where Domino’s customer care apologised for the “unpleasant experience” and asked for more details. After this, the complainants issued a legal notice and approached the consumer commission seeking Rs 20 lakh in compensation, along with litigation expenses.
The district commission partially allowed the complaint and awarded Rs 1 lakh for mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs. Challenging this, Domino’s and Jubilant FoodWorks argued before the state commission that the allegations were not supported scientifically and were based only on unauthenticated photographs.
The company asserted that it maintains strict hygiene standards at its outlets, including pest-control systems, insect-killer machines, and regular sanitation procedures. It also contended that pizzas are baked at around 515 degrees Fahrenheit for more than five minutes, making it unlikely for an insect to survive the baking process if it had been present.
The appellants further argued that no laboratory testing of the pizza was conducted under Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and questioned the authenticity of the medical records submitted by the complainants.
However, the state commission concluded that there was sufficient material to back the consumers’ allegations. The bench relied on photographs of the pizza, the order slip dated June 24, 2021, medical records, and screenshots of the interaction between the complainants and Domino’s customer care on social media.
According to the commission, the apology posted via Domino’s official social media account amounted to an admission of a lapse. The bench held that the complainants had successfully established that an unhygienic pizza had been served.
At the same time, the commission noted that the district forum’s award of ₹1 lakh was excessive given that the total bill was just slightly above Rs 1,000. The commission said, “It is pertinent to observe that the Appellants/OPs need to be penalised serving unhygienic food item to the Respondents/Complainants,” while modifying the earlier order.
According to the commission’s directions, Rs 10,000 was to be deposited with the “Director PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund” at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research within three weeks. It also ordered that Rs 10,000 from the Rs 50,000 already deposited by the company during the appeal filing should be transferred to the welfare fund, while the remaining amount along with any accrued interest would be returned to the appellants after the expiry of the limitation period.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE