Latest news with #MumbaiSuburbanDistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
When momo is less than it seems
ET Bureau If there's one myth about India that refuses to go away, it's the one about us being a nation of leaf-eaters. The truth is far juicier. Multiple surveys show that over 70% of Indians enjoy their succulent mutton tikkas and artery-clogging fish orlys. Add to that the quiet carnivores: those who eat non-veg on the sly but would never squeal. Yet, the illusion lives on, fuelling food fights both literal and legal. Two residents of Dadar recently hauled a popular momo chain to the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - a mouthful, if there ever was one - claiming they were served chicken momos instead of veg ones. Their religious sentiments, they said, were deeply hurt - as was an 'upcoming' puja that, conveniently, had no fixed date, no deity or pandit to back it up. For their troubles, they sought ₹6 lakh in damages, hoping to make a serious point about respecting beliefs. The commission wasn't chewing it. The invoice clearly said that they had ordered non-veg momos, and their 'evidence' - a few fuzzy photos and a sob story - didn't cut the chutney. The panel did wonder why, if they were that strict, did they not stick to a 'pure-veg' joint? Even if there was a mix-up, it all sounded highly suspicious. In a land where garlic divides families, maybe just read the bill - before chasing moksha, or compensation.
India Today
9 hours ago
- Business
- India Today
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 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 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 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 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 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. advertisementWith no solid proof of negligence or misrepresentation on the part of the company, the commission dismissed the complaint.
