A Mumbai consumer redressal commission has said that if non-vegetarian food offends a “strictly vegetarian” person’s religious beliefs, they should avoid ordering from restaurants that serve both vegetarian and non-vegetarian dishes.
In an order passed last month, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, said, “A sensible person should be able to identify veg and non-veg food before eating it.”
The commission dismissed a complaint filed by two individuals against a food outlet for allegedly serving them non-veg food.
The complainants claimed they had ordered a vegetarian “steamed Darjeeling momo combo” with a soft drink from a Wow Momos outlet in Sion on December 19, 2020.
They said they clearly stated twice that they wanted vegetarian food but were instead served chicken momos.
They further alleged the restaurant ignored their instructions and that the menu display did not clearly show whether the combo was vegetarian or non-vegetarian.
The incident, they said, caused them emotional stress, mental trauma, and hurt their religious sentiments, and they demanded ₹6 lakh in compensation.
However, the restaurant claimed the customers themselves ordered non-veg items, as reflected in the invoice.
It added that the customers misbehaved with the staff and created a scene, after which the order was refunded and the food was given free of cost.
The company argued that since a refund was given, the complainants were not legally “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act.
It also said it later offered a ₹1,200 gift voucher as a goodwill gesture, but the complainants instead demanded ₹3 lakh each.
The company alleged the complaint was filed with bad intentions to trouble them.
The commission observed that the invoice clearly showed non-veg momos were ordered and reiterated that a careful person would notice the difference before eating.
Although the board did not clearly show whether the combo was veg or non-veg, it mentioned “veg/non-veg” at the bottom, suggesting both options were available.
The panel also noted that the complainants didn’t provide proof that any religious rituals were impacted. Since no service fault could be proved against the company, the commission dismissed the case.
