‘If strictly veg, why order from non-veg restaurant?': Consumer forum dismisses Dadar couple's complaint over chicken momos
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai has dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the delivery of chicken momos to a couple who allegedly ordered the vegetarian version of the snack, observing that if they were 'strictly vegetarian', they need not have ordered food from a restaurant that also delivers non-vegetarian meals. The Commission added that the complainants failed to provide proof that they had ordered vegetarian momos and pointed out that the offer mentioned both 'veg-non-veg'.
'If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and the non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why they opted for order from a restaurant which was delivering both non-veg and vegetarian food instead of ordering the food from a restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian and served only and only vegetarian food,' the bench comprising president Pradeep Kadu and member Gauri Kapse said in the order on May 13.
The couple from Dadar had approached the Commission in the district in 2020, stating that while they had ordered a 'Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo' from the outlet Wow Momos, and had specified their preference for vegetarian food, they were served chicken momos. They had paid Rs 120 for the combo, which included an aerated beverage, and sought compensation for the 'mental trauma' and 'emotional distress', as their religious feelings were hurt, alleging negligence by the eatery.
Wow Momos denied the allegations and said the couple had ordered a non-vegetarian combo, as is evident from their order invoice. They were also given a refund, which they had accepted, and hence they do not fall under the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, it was submitted on behalf of the firm.
The Commission said no evidence was produced to show that the couple had ordered vegetarian momos, and the photographs they submitted as evidence did not indicate what kind of momos were delivered.
'If non-veg order had been delivered to the complainants instead of veg order, then it ought to have contained only non-veg pieces. A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it… The complainants have produced a photo of the offer board which did not clearly indicate whether the Steam Darjeeling Momos were veg or non-veg,' the bench said.
'However, the board did mention 'veg-non-veg', at the bottom suggesting that the restaurant did provide some indication of the food type,' the commission stated, adding that the complainants should have been aware of the possibility that non-veg options were available.
The complainants also said that they were performing a puja and other religious ceremonies at the time, but the Commission stated that no proof was given to substantiate this claim, nor was the name of any pujari disclosed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘If strictly veg, why order from non-veg restaurant?': Consumer forum dismisses Dadar couple's complaint over chicken momos
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai has dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the delivery of chicken momos to a couple who allegedly ordered the vegetarian version of the snack, observing that if they were 'strictly vegetarian', they need not have ordered food from a restaurant that also delivers non-vegetarian meals. The Commission added that the complainants failed to provide proof that they had ordered vegetarian momos and pointed out that the offer mentioned both 'veg-non-veg'. 'If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and the non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why they opted for order from a restaurant which was delivering both non-veg and vegetarian food instead of ordering the food from a restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian and served only and only vegetarian food,' the bench comprising president Pradeep Kadu and member Gauri Kapse said in the order on May 13. The couple from Dadar had approached the Commission in the district in 2020, stating that while they had ordered a 'Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo' from the outlet Wow Momos, and had specified their preference for vegetarian food, they were served chicken momos. They had paid Rs 120 for the combo, which included an aerated beverage, and sought compensation for the 'mental trauma' and 'emotional distress', as their religious feelings were hurt, alleging negligence by the eatery. Wow Momos denied the allegations and said the couple had ordered a non-vegetarian combo, as is evident from their order invoice. They were also given a refund, which they had accepted, and hence they do not fall under the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, it was submitted on behalf of the firm. The Commission said no evidence was produced to show that the couple had ordered vegetarian momos, and the photographs they submitted as evidence did not indicate what kind of momos were delivered. 'If non-veg order had been delivered to the complainants instead of veg order, then it ought to have contained only non-veg pieces. A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it… The complainants have produced a photo of the offer board which did not clearly indicate whether the Steam Darjeeling Momos were veg or non-veg,' the bench said. 'However, the board did mention 'veg-non-veg', at the bottom suggesting that the restaurant did provide some indication of the food type,' the commission stated, adding that the complainants should have been aware of the possibility that non-veg options were available. The complainants also said that they were performing a puja and other religious ceremonies at the time, but the Commission stated that no proof was given to substantiate this claim, nor was the name of any pujari disclosed.
Time of India
18 hours ago
- Time of India
If strictly veg, why order from eatery that also serves non-veg: Consumer panel
MUMBAI: Questioning why they chose to order from a restaurant that also offered non-vegetarian options instead of an exclusively vegetarian establishment if they were strictly vegetarian and believed consuming meat would hurt their religious sentiments, a consumer commission has dismissed a complaint filed by two Dadar residents who sought Rs 6 lakh in compensation from a fast food chain that served them chicken momos in Dec 2020. "[That] a prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it seems reasonable," the commission said. The complainants, Gargi Joshi and Jitesh Mundhwa, had claimed that they had specifically asked for vegetarian options twice when placing an order for a momo and soft drink combination meal for Rs 120 at Wow Momos Foods Private Ltd's Sion outlet, but the commission said the complainants failed to substantiate this claim, noting that the invoice indicated a non-vegetarian order. It said the photos of the dish provided by the complainants did not clearly show whether it was non-vegetarian. On the complainants' claim that a display board near the eatery did not explicitly state that meat could be part of the combo meal, the commission comprising president Pradeep G Kadu and member Gauri M Kapse pointed out that it did mention "veg or non-veg" at the bottom. It also found no evidence for the claim that Joshi and Mundhwa's plan to perform puja or religious ceremonies was thwarted by the consumption of meat. "...they have [not] disclosed the names of any pujari or pandit who allegedly performed the puja... They have failed to disclose even the nature, name, date and place of the puja or religious ceremonies," it said. The Dadar residents had said after being served the wrong food, they contacted the company's head office in Kolkata and spoke to the director, who connected them to the Mumbai management. An employee representing the Mumbai management apologised to them and offered to meet them to resolve the matter, but no settlement was reached during a meeting, they said. In their complaint filed before the consumer panel in 2021, Joshi and Mundhwa provided copies of the bill, photographs of the display board and legal notices. The company said the complainants suppressed facts and that they themselves had ordered non-vegetarian items, as shown by the invoice. Arguing that they were not "consumers" under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as they had received a refund, the company said it had clearly displayed vegetarian and non-vegetarian options and has a complaint book and email ID available, which the complainants did not use. It also denied employing the server who the complainants said had taken their order, adding that the person was physically abused by the complainants. The company said it had refunded the complainants' money because they had created "unnecessary nuisance". Despite their behaviour, it said, the complainants were also offered a gift voucher worth Rs 1,200 as a goodwill gesture, but they demanded Rs 3 lakh each.
New Indian Express
21 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Cholamandalam ordered to pay Rs 7.3 lakh to policyholder for service deficiency
Following the incident, Afnan informed the insurance company and sought compensation. A surveyor was appointed by the insurer, and the vehicle was inspected both physically and via video conference with officials at the police station concerned. Later, the insurer sent a letter to the complainant asking him to submit the accident-related documents. Afnan responded that he could not furnish the documents as the vehicle was still in police custody. He contended that the insurance company had already obtained the relevant documents during the survey and claim form submission. On February 1, 2024, as per court orders, the vehicle was released and taken to a garage in Shivamogga for repairs, which were estimated at Rs 6,01,482. Afnan requested the insurer to treat the claim as a total loss, as the repair cost exceeded 75 percent of the IDV. However, the insurer declined, stating the claim had been closed due to delayed submission of documents. Afnan also stated that the second respondent, IndusInd Bank Ltd, had repossessed the vehicle as he failed to pay EMIs following the accident. He approached the consumer commission, alleging that the insurer had failed to process the claim despite having all necessary documents and had thereby caused a deficiency in service. After reviewing the evidence and arguments from all parties, the Commission observed that the second and third respondents -- IndusInd Bank's Chennai and Shivamogga branches -- had only provided the vehicle loan and bore no responsibility in processing the insurance claim. The Commission ruled that the insurance company had wrongfully denied the claim despite proper documentation and deemed it a service deficiency. The bench comprising commission president T Shivanna and member B D Yogananda Bhandya issued the final order recently. The commission directed that within 45 days from the date of the order, the second and third respondents must hand over the vehicle to the insurer, and the insurer must pay Rs 7,30,550 to the complainant at 9 percent annual interest from May 8, 2024, until the full amount is paid. If delayed, the interest rate will increase to 10 per cent until settlement. The commission further instructed the complainant to cooperate with the insurer in transferring the vehicle records at the relevant authority as and when required.
