A vegetarian man approached the consumer commission claiming that his religious sentiments were hurt after he was served non-vegetarian food despite ordering a vegetarian meal. However, the commission dismissed his complaint, questioning why he ordered food from a restaurant that also serves non-vegetarian dishes if he was so concerned about his religious beliefs. The Maharashtra Consumer Commission made strong observations while addressing the dispute involving non-vegetarian food. The complainant had accused the restaurant of wrongly serving him non-vegetarian food. The commission questioned why, if the complainant was strictly vegetarian, he chose to order from an establishment that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. It added that he should have ordered from a purely vegetarian restaurant.
The commission further commented that any reasonable person should be able to distinguish between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food before eating, thereby reprimanding the complainant. The incident took place in Mumbai’s Sion area. On December 19, 2020, the complainant had ordered a “Darjeeling Momo Combo” with a soft drink from a Wow! Momo outlet. He had requested veg momos, but was allegedly served chicken momos instead. The complainant also argued that the outlet’s display board did not clearly indicate whether the combo was vegetarian or non-vegetarian. He claimed the restaurant’s negligence caused him emotional distress and hurt his religious sentiments, for which he demanded Rs 6 lakh in compensation.
Also Read: Mumbai Metro One Turns 11: Over 111 Crore Passengers Carried Since 2014
The restaurant, however, refuted the allegations, stating that the complainant had in fact ordered non-vegetarian items, as reflected in the bill. They also accused the complainant of physically harassing staff and causing disruption. Furthermore, the restaurant contended that the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act because he was offered a vegetarian replacement meal along with a Rs 1,200 gift voucher, which he accepted but still insisted on compensation — allegedly only to harass the restaurant.
The commission reviewed the bill and found that the complainant had indeed ordered non-vegetarian food. Additionally, although the offer board did not explicitly label the “Steamed Darjeeling Momo Combo” as vegetarian or non-vegetarian, it did mention “Veg/Non-Veg” clearly at the bottom. The commission concluded that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence that his sentiments were hurt and dismissed the complaint.