Why should a vegetarian order from non-veg serving eatery if it hurts sentiments? Consumer panel says
A consumer redressal commission in Mumbai has said if meat-based food hurts a "strictly vegetarian" person's religious sentiments, why should the individual opt to order from a restaurant serving both veg and non-veg items.
It seems reasonable that "a prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming," the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Additional) said in an order passed last month.
The commission dismissed a complaint by two persons against an eatery for allegedly wrongly serving them non-vegetarian food.
"If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why did they opt to order the food items from the restaurant which was delivering both non-veg and vegetarian food, instead of ordering the food from the restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian and served only and only vegetarian food," it said.
As per the complainants, they had ordered a steamed 'Darjeeling momo combo' with a soft drink from a Momo outlet at Sion in Mumbai on December 19, 2020.
Also read: Why did the Brahmins become vegetarian? B.R. Ambedkar asks in this excerpt from 'Beef, Brahmins and Broken Men'
They claimed to have specifically emphasised their vegetarian preference twice. However, they received steamed "chicken Darjeeling momos", the complainants said.
They further alleged that the eatery staff ignored their instructions and that the display board at the outlet did not clearly indicate vegetarian or non-vegetarian options for the combo.
The complainants claimed they suffered mental trauma, emotional distress and their religious feelings were hurt due to the negligence of the company.
They sought ₹6 lakh in compensation for the distress caused.
The company, on the other hand, contended the complainants themselves ordered non-vegetarian items, as indicated by the invoice.
It alleged that the complainants physically abused their employee and created a nuisance, leading them to refund the order and provide the products free of cost. The company submitted that the complainants were not "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act due to the refund.
Despite the alleged behaviour, the company said it offered a gift voucher worth ₹1,200 as a goodwill gesture, but the complainants demanded ₹3 lakh each.
The complaint was filed with malafide intention to harass the company, it claimed. The commission noted that the invoice indicated the complainants ordered non-veg momos.
"A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it seems reasonable," the commission noted.
The commission pointed out that while the offer board's photo did not clearly state if the steamed Darjeeling Momo combo was veg or non-veg, it did mention "veg/non-veg" at the bottom, implying the availability of both the options. Furthermore, the complainants failed to provide evidence or details regarding any religious ceremonies they claimed were affected, the commission said.
The complainants have not been able to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the company, it added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Telangana urges audit of big irrigation projects, moots farmer-centric reforms; demands MSP for all crops with state authority on pricing
Telangana has advocated for a comprehensive audit of large irrigation projects before a Supreme Court panel, highlighting their impact on agricultural sustainability HYDERABAD: As debates continue around the cost and viability of the Kaleshwaram irrigation project, Telangana has made a strong case before the Supreme Court-appointed high-powered committee on agricultural crisis-constituted in the aftermath of the Punjab farmers' protests against central farm laws. During their interaction with the committee over the last two days in Haryana, Telangana representatives called for a comprehensive audit and review of investments in large irrigation projects, citing their direct impact on agricultural sustainability. They proposed promoting small-scale, individually-owned irrigation systems as a viable alternative to the current large-scale, publicly-managed projects, which often come with significant financial and ecological burdens. A key recommendation was to issue insurance policy documents to farmers, similar to health and life insurance formats, to offer better financial security in the face of crop failure and unpredictable climatic conditions. Telangana Rythu Commission chairperson M Kodanda Reddy, Telangana Seed Development Corporation chairperson S Anvesh Reddy, and other members of the Telangana team also stressed the importance of developing multiple use water systems, arguing that water should serve various agricultural and non-agricultural needs. Improve existing infra "Site selection for irrigation projects should be done carefully to minimise negative environmental and social impacts," they noted, while advocating for improving the efficiency of existing infrastructure and reclaiming degraded farmland instead of building new projects. Among other crucial points raised: State-wise water resource management plans should be formulated. The minimum support price (MSP) should be extended to all crops, with focus on crops like turmeric, jaggery, and mustard, given escalating input costs. Telangana also proposed that states be empowered to set their own MSP. The farmer should be recognised not just as a producer but also as a consumer, who routinely faces issues such as poor quality inputs, lack of after sales service, price manipulation, and weight fraud - areas where the Consumer Protection Act fails to fully safeguard farmers . Telangana urged the creation of special legal provisions for farmers as consumers.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Bengaluru faces surge in auto fares after bike taxi ban, commuters demand solutions
Bengaluru is observing a steep increase in auto rickshaw and taxi fares following a directive from the Karnataka High Court on Monday to cease bike taxi services across the state. Commuters are now reporting fare increases up to 25 per cent. Many said Uber had the steepest fare surge. Sukrutha Shavanak, a commuter, said the fare from Singasandra to Jayanagar, which comes up to around 8 km, costs ₹190, however, rides from Singasandra to Electronics City, which is 4 km, are priced at ₹180. 'This price hike has been in play even before bike taxis were banned,' she said. READ | Ola, Uber, Rapido bike taxis banned in Karnataka starting today: 'Not a side income, this is how we survive,' say driver Prathiksha Harish, a techie, echoed the same, saying ride fares have become costlier since mid-May. A ride from Electronic City to Koramangala 6th Block now costs ₹90 more than usual, she said. 'I used to pay ₹350 from home to office, but now I pay ₹440." Hindustan Times also observed that a 11 km taxi ride from Vajarahalli metro station to Srinagar, which would usually cost a maximum of ₹350, was now priced well above ₹450. READ | Bengaluru bike-taxi ban: Over 100 illegal two-wheelers seized on day 1 of enforcement Many are also encountering longer wait times, with auto rides only available if tips are added. A senior executive from a major ride-hailing platform attributed the surge pricing to increased demand, saying that the demand for autos has naturally spiked after bike taxis have been taken off the roads, which has led to higher fares, according to a Deccan Herald report. READ | 'Difficult but helpless': Uber responds on Karnataka government's ban on bike taxis Several commuters from Bengaluru lamented the new bike taxi ban on social media, with one writing, 'For a distance of 2.2 kms, fare from different apps for auto is Rs. 60-101. Actual fare should be 33. On what basis these exorbitant rate have been calculated. On top of it you ban bike taxi also?' 'First you failed to manage traffic, then you banned the one thing that worked—bike taxis. This isn't governance, it's punishment. We Need Bike Taxi,' another posted. 'Not even 8am, and #Bengaluru is choked already. Thanks to the #biketaxi ban, had to take an auto. Give me walkable shortest paths to the bus stops, and bike lanes, please. This is no way to create cities,' another post read. Ride-hailing platforms have often come under the radar of the transport department for illegally charging exorbitant rates. In this light, an advocate noted that affected commuters can seek legal remedies under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which addresses 'Unfair Trade Practices', the Deccan Herald report added.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana: Wrong delivery costs e-commerce giant ₹22,000
In a strong message to e-commerce platforms, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has directed Amazon India to refund the full amount to a consumer for delivering a wrong product and failing to resolve the issue despite repeated complaints. The commission also imposed a compensation of ₹7,000 on the company for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The order came in response to a complaint filed by Sunil Bajaj, a resident of Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, who had ordered a Glen 90cm 1200 m³/hr BLDC filterless auto-clean chimney through Amazon on August 15, 2024, as part of an Independence Day discount offer. The chimney was priced at ₹14,414.82 against its original MRP of ₹17,290. Bajaj had also purchased an extended warranty plan worth ₹694.05 from Acko Insurance through Amazon. The complainant made the payment using his son's credit card and the product was to be delivered by August 17, 2024. However, on August 18, the product was delivered in his absence without generating any OTP verification. To his shock, Bajaj later discovered that the item received was a different chimney model, billed to another customer named Anmol from Amritsar, priced at ₹11,990. Despite multiple calls and emails to Amazon's customer support, including assurances from executives, the issue remained unresolved. Instead of rectifying the mistake, Amazon allegedly advised the complainant to place a fresh order at the current market price of ₹20,999, and assured that the price difference would be credited to his Amazon Pay balance after the return window expired. The Commission, after examining all records, concluded that Amazon had indulged in unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(47)(viii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The panel noted that the company neither replaced the wrongly delivered item nor refunded the amount within the stipulated time. The commission's presiding officer Sanjeev Batra and member Monika Bhagat observed that the complainant had been caused mental harassment and financial loss, and held Amazon accountable for negligent service. The e-commerce giant was ordered to refund the price of the product, ₹14,414.82 and ₹694.05 for the extended warranty. The commission also directed Amazon to pay ₹7,000 as compensation and litigation cost.
