If Non-Veg Food Hurts Religious Sentiments, Why Should Vegetarian Order From Restaurant Serving Non-Veg? Mumbai Consumer Court

If a person is “strictly” vegetarian and non-vegetarian food “hurts” their religious sentiments, then why should s/he order food from a restaurant offering both veg and non-veg food, questioned a consumer court in Mumbai, while rejecting a claim by two persons, that their religious sentiments were hurt after the popular eatery “Wow Momo” sent chicken Momos.

A coram of President Pradeep Kadu and Member Gauri Kapse of the Mumbai Suburban Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission noted that though the applicants claimed that they ordered “Veg Steam Darjeeling Momo” along with a Pepsi, they received chicken Momos, which led to emotional distress, mental trauma and even hurt their religious sentiments.

The applicants, therefore, demanded Rs 6 lakhs as compensation.

However, the coram noted that the applicants failed to substantiate their claims of performing some Pooja (rituals) while they ordered the food and then received non-veg food. It noted that the applicants failed to provide names of any Pandit or Poojari, who performed the Pooja and that they have also failed to disclose even the nature, name, date and place of the pooja/religious ceremonies.

“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 nonveg and vegetarian food instead of ordering the food from the restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian, and served only and only vegetarian food,” the coram said in the order passed on May 13. Further, the coram noted that the applicants failed to produce any evidence that they had only ordered Veg momos and not chicken ones. It would not be out of place to mention that the applicants had alleged that they twice instructed one of the representatives of Wow Momo to ensure that they send only Veg momos, however, the said contention could not be substantiated as even the invoice of their order indicated that they ordered chicken Momos.

“The Veg and Non-veg momos prices are same. The Complainants have produced 2 -3 photos of dish but we could not gather it as if they are veg or non-veg momos. No inference can be drawn therefrom in view of the fact that the Complainants have failed to prove that on the given date non-veg order had been delivered to them instead of veg order,” the coram observed.

In its six-page order, authored by Member Kapse, the coram said, “If non veg order had been delivered to the Complainants instead of veg order, then, it ought to have contained only and only non-veg pieces therein. A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it seems reasonable.”

The applicants produced a photo of the offer board which didn’t clearly indicate whether the Steam Darjeeling Momo (1 plate) + Pepsi was veg or non-veg, the coram noted.

“However, the board did mention ‘veg/non-veg’ at the bottom suggesting that the restaurant did provide some indication of the food type. This could imply that the Complainants should have been aware of the possibility of both veg and non-veg options being available,” the coram opined.

With these observations, the coram held that the applicants failed to point out any negligence in the service of Wow Momo and therefore, dismissed the complaint.