The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai Suburban (Additional) has dismissed a Consumer Court Complaint filed by two individuals who alleged they were served non-vegetarian food despite specifying a vegetarian order. The case, involving a meal ordered from Wow Momos, was rejected on the grounds that there was no deficiency in service. The commission further questioned the rationale behind choosing a restaurant that offers both vegetarian and non-vegetarian dishes if the complainants’ religious beliefs were so strongly tied to food choices.
“If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why did they opt to order from a restaurant which was delivering both non-veg and vegetarian food, instead of ordering from one that was exclusively vegetarian,” the commission stated in its order issued last month. The panel’s comments have added a broader dimension to the debate around food preferences and accountability in mixed-menu establishments.
Incident Details and Company’s Response
The dispute originated from an order placed on December 19, 2020, at a Wow Momos outlet in Sion, Mumbai, where the complainants ordered a steamed Darjeeling momo combo with a soft drink. They claimed to have specified their vegetarian preference twice, but alleged that they were served chicken momos instead. According to them, this mistake caused emotional distress, mental trauma, and amounted to an affront to their religious beliefs. Based on these claims, they demanded ₹6 lakh in compensation.
In its defense, Wow Momos denied the accusations, stating the invoice clearly indicated that non-vegetarian momos had been ordered. The company also alleged that the complainants behaved inappropriately with staff at the outlet and caused a disturbance. Despite this, the restaurant refunded the order amount and offered the food free of charge.
Moreover, Wow Momos argued that since a refund had been processed, the Consumer Court Complaint lacked merit, as the complainants could not be considered consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. The restaurant also shared that they attempted to resolve the matter amicably by offering a ₹1,200 gift voucher, which the complainants rejected, instead demanding ₹3 lakh each. The company alleged that the case was lodged with a malicious intent to harass the business.
Verdict: No Proof of Service Deficiency or Religious Harm
After reviewing the evidence, the commission found no merit in the Consumer Court Complaint. The invoice supported Wow Momos’ claim that the non-vegetarian item was what had been ordered. Additionally, the commission noted that a reasonable individual should be able to distinguish between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food upon receiving it.
While acknowledging that the combo offer board lacked clarity, the panel pointed out that it did include veg/non-veg labels, showing both options were available. The commission further highlighted the absence of any proof indicating that religious ceremonies were disrupted, as alleged by the complainants.
In conclusion, with no evidence of service failure or religious impact, the Consumer Court Complaint was dismissed by the commission, which emphasized the importance of making informed choices when religious sentiments are at stake.
Visit more of our news! Business Viewpoint Magazine.
