If veg, why choose non-veg joint? Consumer forum rejects plea against food outlet

The Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed a complaint against a popular food joint, in which a group of complainants alleged that they were served non-vegetarian food despite clearly requesting a vegetarian dish.

The panel held that the complainants failed to provide adequate evidence to support their claims and questioned their decision to order from an outlet that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.

The incident dated back to December 19, 2020, when the complainants ordered a plate of momos from an outlet in suburban Mumbai. They alleged that although they specified their preference for vegetarian food twice, they were served chicken momos. The total bill for the order, which included a soft drink, was Rs 120.

Claiming mental trauma, emotional distress, and hurt religious sentiments, the complainants approached the company's Kolkata head office and were subsequently connected to the Mumbai management. While the local team apologised and agreed to meet the complainants, both parties failed to reach a settlement.

Following this, the complainants issued a legal notice demanding Rs 6 lakh in compensation, citing "grave negligence" by the outlet in serving an incorrect dish. In response, the company denied wrongdoing and alleged that the complainants themselves had ordered non-vegetarian food, pointing to the invoice as evidence. The company also accused the complainants of verbally and physically abusing the employee who delivered the food.

Despite the incident, the outlet claimed to have offered a goodwill voucher worth Rs 1,200, which the complainants allegedly rejected while demanding Rs 3 lakh each.

Upon reviewing the case, the consumer forum found no conclusive proof that a vegetarian dish was ordered. The invoice submitted as evidence clearly indicated a non-vegetarian item. The commission also noted that photos of the dish submitted by the complainants did not help determine whether the momos were vegetarian or not.

"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 commission observed.

The panel further questioned the complainants' claims of their religious sentiments being violated, pointing out that they failed to provide any details — such as the name of the priest or specifics of the rituals — that were allegedly disrupted due to the incident.

"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?" the panel said.

With no solid proof of negligence or misrepresentation on the part of the company, the commission dismissed the complaint.