Why order from a non-veg eatery if it hurts sentiments?: Consumer panel

Mumbai: A consumer redressal commission ruled that if a "strictly vegetarianvegetarian" individual finds meat-based food objectionable, they should avoid ordering from restaurants that serve both vegetarian and non-vegetarian dishes.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Additional), stated that "a prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming."

Last month, the commission dismissed a complaint filed by two individuals against an eatery for allegedly serving them non-vegetarian food by mistake.

"If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why did they opt to order the food items from the restaurant which was delivering both non-veg and vegetarian food, instead of ordering the food from the restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian and served only and only vegetarian food," it said.

As per the complainants, they had ordered a steamed 'Darjeeling momo combo' with a soft drink from a Wow Momos outlet at Sion in Mumbai on December 19, 2020.

The complainants asserted that they had twice emphasised their vegetarian preference but were still served steamed "chicken Darjeeling momos".

They alleged that the eatery staff disregarded their instructions and that the display board did not clearly distinguish between vegetarian and non-vegetarian options in the combo.

Claiming mental trauma, emotional distress, and harm to their religious sentiments due to the company's negligence, they sought Rs 6 lakh in compensation.

The company, however, countered that the complainants had ordered non-vegetarian items themselves, as reflected in the invoice.

The company alleged that the complainants physically assaulted an employee and caused a disturbance, prompting them to refund the order and provide the products free of cost.

It argued that, due to the refund, the complainants did not qualify as "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act.

Despite the alleged misconduct, the company stated that it offered a Rs 1,200 gift voucher as a goodwill gesture, but the complainants instead demanded Rs 3 lakh each.

The company claimed the complaint was filed with malafide intent to harass them. The commission, meanwhile, noted that the invoice showed the complainants had ordered non-vegetarian momos.

"A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it; it seems reasonable," the commission noted.

The commission pointed out that while the offer board's photo did not clearly state if the steamed Darjeeling Momo combo was veg or non-veg, it did mention "veg/non-veg" at the bottom, implying the availability of both options.

Furthermore, the complainants failed to provide evidence or details regarding any religious ceremonies they claimed were affected, the commission said.

The complainants have not been able to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the company, it added.

(inputs from PTI)