Hindu Sentiments Are Hurt? Then Why Order From Non-Veg Restaurant? Court Dismisses Complaint
After ordering a vegetarian supper, a vegetarian guy went to the consumer commission to complain that the non-vegetarian food he received offended his religious feelings.
The commission, however, rejected his complaint, asking why, if he was so worried about his religious convictions, he would buy meals from a restaurant that also provides non-vegetarian fare. When addressing the controversy around non-vegetarian cuisine, the maharashtra Consumer Commission made some noteworthy observations.
The eatery was accused by the complaint of serving him non-vegetarian cuisine in error. The commission asked why the complainant ordered from a restaurant that served both vegetarian and non-vegetarian cuisine if he was a devoted vegetarian. He ought to have placed his order at a restaurant that served just vegetarian food, it continued.
The complainant was reprimanded by the commission, which also stated that any reasonable person should be able to tell vegetarian food from non-vegetarian cuisine before eating it. The incident happened in the Sion neighborhood of Mumbai. The complaint placed an order for a "Darjeeling Momo Combo" and a soft drink at a Wow! Momo location on december 19, 2020.
He apparently received chicken momos instead of the vegetarian ones he had ordered. The complainant further claimed that it was unclear from the outlet's display board whether the combo was vegetarian or not. He wanted Rs 6 lakh in compensation, claiming that the restaurant's negligence had wounded his religious emotions and caused him severe suffering.
However, the restaurant denied the accusations, claiming that the bill showed that the complaint had really ordered non-vegetarian food. Additionally, they charged the complaint with disturbing the peace and violently harassing employees. Additionally, the restaurant argued that the complainant did not meet the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act as a "consumer" since he was offered a vegetarian substitute meal and a Rs 1,200 gift voucher, which he accepted but insisted on receiving compensation for, allegedly, harassing the establishment.
After looking over the bill, the commission concluded that the complaint had in fact placed an order for non-vegetarian meals. Furthermore, the offer board made notice of "Veg/Non-Veg" at the bottom, even though it did not specifically mark the "Steamed darjeeling Momo Combo" as vegetarian or non-vegetarian. The commission dismissed the complaint after concluding that the plaintiff had not presented enough proof that his feelings had been offended.
The commission, however, rejected his complaint, asking why, if he was so worried about his religious convictions, he would buy meals from a restaurant that also provides non-vegetarian fare. When addressing the controversy around non-vegetarian cuisine, the maharashtra Consumer Commission made some noteworthy observations.
The eatery was accused by the complaint of serving him non-vegetarian cuisine in error. The commission asked why the complainant ordered from a restaurant that served both vegetarian and non-vegetarian cuisine if he was a devoted vegetarian. He ought to have placed his order at a restaurant that served just vegetarian food, it continued.
The complainant was reprimanded by the commission, which also stated that any reasonable person should be able to tell vegetarian food from non-vegetarian cuisine before eating it. The incident happened in the Sion neighborhood of Mumbai. The complaint placed an order for a "Darjeeling Momo Combo" and a soft drink at a Wow! Momo location on december 19, 2020.
He apparently received chicken momos instead of the vegetarian ones he had ordered. The complainant further claimed that it was unclear from the outlet's display board whether the combo was vegetarian or not. He wanted Rs 6 lakh in compensation, claiming that the restaurant's negligence had wounded his religious emotions and caused him severe suffering.
However, the restaurant denied the accusations, claiming that the bill showed that the complaint had really ordered non-vegetarian food. Additionally, they charged the complaint with disturbing the peace and violently harassing employees. Additionally, the restaurant argued that the complainant did not meet the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act as a "consumer" since he was offered a vegetarian substitute meal and a Rs 1,200 gift voucher, which he accepted but insisted on receiving compensation for, allegedly, harassing the establishment.
After looking over the bill, the commission concluded that the complaint had in fact placed an order for non-vegetarian meals. Furthermore, the offer board made notice of "Veg/Non-Veg" at the bottom, even though it did not specifically mark the "Steamed darjeeling Momo Combo" as vegetarian or non-vegetarian. The commission dismissed the complaint after concluding that the plaintiff had not presented enough proof that his feelings had been offended.