District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Mumbai Suburban: While considering the a matter wherein it was alleged that while ordering from Wow Momos’ outlet, the complainants who had ordered veg steamed momos, instead had been served with non-veg steamed momos; the Bench of Pradeep G. Kadu (President) and Gauri M. Kapse (Member)* dismissed the complaint holding that the complainants failed to substantially prove their allegations of Non-veg momos being served to vegetarians and other claims.
The Commission further opined that if the complainants were strictly vegetarian and that non-vegetarian foods hurt their religious sentiments, then why did they opt to order food from an outlet that delivers both veg and non-veg food items instead of ordering from the restaurant which is exclusively vegetarian.
Background:
On 19-12-2020, the complainants ordered a “Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo” from the outlet of Wow Momos at Cafe Coffee Day. The complainants alleged that despite specifying their preference for vegetarian momos, they were served with “Steam Chicken Darjeeling Momo” and 1 Pepsi. The complainants also alleged that one of the employees of the outlet ignored their instructions and served the wrong order. They further alleged that the display board near Wow Momos’ stall did not display veg or non-veg options for Steam Darjeeling Momos. It was further alleged that that outlet’s negligence caused the complainants mental trauma and hurt their religious sentiments. It was stated that no settlement was reached between them and the management of Wow Momos; thereafter the complainants filed the instant consumer complaint under Section 35(1)(a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking compensation of Rs 6,00,000 (6 Lakhs).
Per contra, counsel representing Wow Momos contended that the complainants themselves ordered non-veg momos as evident from the invoice. It was contended that the complainants misbehaved with the employee who served them. It was argued that the complainants do not come under the category of ‘consumer’ as they have received a refund. Wow Momos further stated that they offered a gift voucher worth Rs 1200 as a sign of goodwill, however, the complainants rejected the same and demanded Rs 3 Lakhs each.
DCDRC’s Assessment vis-a-vis Veg/Non-veg Momo controversy:
Perusing the facts of the case and the evidence on record, the Commission noted that the complainants were not able to substantiate their claims with respect to any alleged deficiency in service. The Commission pointed out that the complainants failed to produce any evidence showing that they had ordered only veg momos. The invoice indicated that they ordered non-veg momos.
It was stated that no inference could be drawn in view of the fact that the complainants failed to prove that on the given date, they had ordered only veg momos. The Commission further opined that in the event of a replacement, a prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it. Perusing the photo of the offer board, the Commission pointed out that the board did mention ‘veg/non-veg’ at the bottom suggesting that the outlet did provide some indication of the food type. Therefore, this could imply that the complainants should have been aware of the possibility of both veg and non-veg options being available.
Furthermore, the complainants failed to substantiate that they had performed any pujas or religious ceremonies and failed to disclose its name, date, nature etc.
Therefore, with the afore-stated assessment, the Commission held that the complainants failed to prove their allegations and hence dismissed their complaint.
[Gargi Prakash Joshi v. Wow Momos Food Pvt. Ltd., CC/16/2021, decided on 13-5-2025]
*Order by Gauri M. Kapse (Member)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
None for the complainants
Mangesh S. Rathod, Adv for the Opposite Parties
