Why Order from Non-Veg Restaurant if Meat Offends Beliefs? Mumbai Consumer Court Asks While Dismissing Complaint
Pranav B Prem
In a recent ruling, the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a consumer complaint alleging delivery of non-vegetarian food to strictly vegetarian customers, observing that if non-vegetarian food truly hurt their religious sentiments, there was no reason for them to order food from a restaurant that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian items.
The bench comprising President Pradeep G. Kadu and Member Gauri M. Kapse was hearing a complaint filed by Gargi Prakash Joshi and Jitesh Nagar Mundhwa against Wow Momos Foods Private Limited and its Director, Niloy Chakraborty. The complainants claimed that on December 19, 2020, they had placed an order for a “Veg Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo” with a Pepsi at the company’s outlet inside a Café Coffee Day at Sion, Mumbai. However, they alleged that they were instead served chicken Momos, which caused them emotional distress, mental trauma, and hurt their religious sentiments.
They asserted that despite giving clear instructions to the staff—allegedly one Ms. Pooja Sharma—to ensure the order was vegetarian, non-veg Momos were delivered. They further stated that the display board at the outlet did not clearly specify whether the combo included veg or non-veg items. After contacting the company’s office in Kolkata, they were directed to its Mumbai branch, where a representative named Bhanooprasad Gaikwad offered to resolve the matter, though no settlement was ultimately reached. The complainants thereafter served legal notices and filed a consumer complaint seeking ₹6,00,000 in compensation for negligence and hurting their religious beliefs.
Wow Momos denied the allegations and contended that the complainants had actually ordered non-veg Momos, as evidenced by the invoice. They further stated that the employee who served the complainants was not named Pooja Sharma but Ms. Roshani Pasi, who, according to them, was physically assaulted by the complainants during the incident. The company alleged that the complainants were attempting to misuse the consumer grievance mechanism and had created a nuisance at the outlet. They also pointed out that the complainants were refunded the full amount, and were later offered a ₹1,200 gift voucher as a goodwill gesture, but they rejected the offer and instead demanded ₹3 lakhs each.
During the hearing, the complainants failed to appear after March 2023, and the case proceeded on the basis of evidence and written submissions from the opposite party. The Commission, in its detailed reasoning, found that the complainants failed to prove that they had ordered vegetarian food or that non-veg food was delivered to them instead. The invoice submitted in evidence clearly indicated that the order was for non-veg Momos. Moreover, the photographs of the food provided by the complainants were inconclusive and failed to establish whether the items were veg or non-veg.
The coram also took note of the fact that the prices for both veg and non-veg Momos were the same, and that the complainants had not submitted any credible evidence, such as a medical or religious record, to support their claim of having conducted a religious ritual or pooja at the time of the incident. They did not name any priest or disclose details of the ritual that was allegedly interrupted or desecrated by the delivery of non-veg food.
Significantly, the Commission observed: "If the Complainants were strictly vegetarian and the non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why they opted 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."
The bench further added that a prudent person would reasonably be able to distinguish between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food before consuming it, and the burden was on the complainants to prove otherwise. The display board at the outlet, while not explicitly labeling each dish, did carry a “veg/non-veg” label, suggesting that it was incumbent upon the customers to clarify their choice and be cautious. Holding that the complainants had failed to substantiate any claim of deficiency in service, negligence, or violation of religious sentiments, the Commission dismissed the complaint. No costs were awarded.
Appearance
Shri Mangesh S. Rathod-Advocate for the Opposite Parties
Cause Title: Gargi Prakash Joshi & Anr. V. Wow Momos Foods Private Limited & Anr.
Case No: Complaint Case No. CC/16/2021
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep G. Kadu [President], Hon'ble Ms. Gauri M. Kapse [Member]
[Read/Download order]
