7 hours ago
Consumer panel dismisses Mumbai duo's momo complaint, says ‘if strictly veg, why order from a joint that serves non-veg too?'
A consumer commission has dismissed a compensation claim of Rs 6 lakh filed by two residents of Dadar, Mumbai, who said they were mistakenly served chicken momo instead of vegetarian ones at a fast food outlet.
Why did they file a complaint?
The complainants, Gargi Joshi and Jitesh Mundhwa, claimed they had clearly asked for vegetarian momo when they visited a
Wow Momos
outlet in Sion in December 2020. They said the mistake hurt their religious sentiments and disrupted their plans for religious ceremonies. They also alleged the restaurant failed to clearly state that the combo meal could include meat.
What did the commission say?
The commission said the duo failed to prove they had asked for vegetarian food. It pointed out that their bill clearly showed they had ordered a non-vegetarian item. It also found that the photos they submitted didn't clearly show if the food was vegetarian or not.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Costco Shoppers Say This Fat-Burning Patch Triggers Weight Loss "Unlike Any Other"
Health Advice Today
Undo
The commission further noted that the display board near the eatery did mention 'veg or non-veg' options, even if it was at the bottom. On their claim about puja plans being disrupted, the commission said they had not shared details like the name of the priest or the kind of puja they were planning.
What did the restaurant say?
Wow
Momos
denied any wrongdoing. The company said the customers had ordered the non-vegetarian item themselves, as shown in the bill, and later created a scene. It also said that the person who took the order was not their employee and was actually mistreated by the complainants.
Live Events
Even so, the restaurant said it refunded the Rs 120 to the complainants and also offered a gift voucher worth Rs 1,200. But Joshi and Mundhwa allegedly demanded Rs 3 lakh each, which the restaurant refused.
What was the final decision?
The commission ruled in favour of the restaurant, stating that a 'reasonable person' should be able to tell the difference between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. It dismissed the complaint, saying it lacked solid evidence.
Inputs from agencies
