The mumbai Suburban district Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has dismissed a grievance against a famous food joint, wherein a set of complainants alleged that they had been served non-vegetarian food despite sincerely asking for a vegetarian dish.

The panel held that the complainants did not offer adequate proof to aid their claims and wondered about their choice to reserve from an outlet that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.

The incident dates back to december 19, 2020, when the complainants ordered a plate of momos from an outlet in suburban Mumbai. They alleged that despite the fact that they expressed their desire for vegetarian meals twice, they have been served chicken momos. The total bill for the order, which included a soft drink, came to Rs one hundred and twenty.

Claiming mental trauma, emotional distress, and harm to religious sentiments, the complainants approached the business enterprise's kolkata head workplace and were sooner or later linked to the mumbai management. At the same time as the nearby group apologized and agreed to meet the complainants, both events did not reach a settlement.

Following this, the complainants issued a legal notice demanding Rs 6 lakh in repayment, citing "grave negligence" on the part of the outlet in serving the wrong dish. In reaction, the enterprise denied wrongdoing and alleged that the complainants themselves had ordered non-vegetarian food, pointing to the bill as proof. The business enterprise also accused the complainants of verbally and bodily abusing the employee who delivered the food.

In spite of the incident, the outlet claimed to have presented a goodwill voucher worth Rs 1,200, which the complainants allegedly rejected at the same time as annoying Rs 300,000 every.

Upon reviewing the case, the consumer discussion board discovered no conclusive proof that a vegetarian dish was ordered. The bill submitted as evidence actually indicated a non-vegetarian object. The commission additionally stated that the pics of the dish submitted by means of the complainants did not help decide whether or not the momos were vegetarian or no longer.

"If a non-veg order were delivered... It should have contained only the simplest non-veg portions therein. A prudent individual could have the ability to distinguish between veg and non-veg meals earlier than eating it," the commission discovered.

The panel, in addition, puzzled over the complainants' claims of their non-secular sentiments being violated, mentioning that they failed to provide any information—including the name of the priest or specifics of the rituals—that had been allegedly disrupted because of the incident.

"If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and non-veg food hurts their spiritual sentiments, then why did they pick to order from an eating place that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food, rather than ordering from an outlet that solely gives vegetarian dishes?" the panel stated.

Without strong evidence of negligence or misrepresentation on the part of the business enterprise, the fee disregarded the criticism.

Disclaimer: This content has been sourced and edited from Indiaherald. While we have made adjustments for clarity and presentation, the unique content material belongs to its respective authors and internet site. We do not claim possession of the content material.