Why Vegetarian Order from a Non-Veg Outlet If It Hurts Sentiments? Consumer Panel Weighs In

Why Vegetarian Order from a Non-Veg Outlet If It Hurts Sentiments? Consumer Panel Weighs In

Why Vegetarian Order from a Non-Veg Outlet If It Hurts Sentiments? Consumer Panel Weighs In

Share This News


Vegetarian couple denied compensation after claiming they were served meat momos, panel questions their choice of restaurant.

In a ruling that has sparked debate, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai has dismissed a complaint by two individuals who claimed a restaurant violated their religious beliefs by serving them non-vegetarian momos. The commission questioned the rationale of ordering from a restaurant that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian dishes if one holds strict dietary restrictions for religious reasons.

The Complaint

The incident dates back to December 19, 2020, when the complainants ordered a Darjeeling momo combo with a soft drink from a Wow Momo outlet in Sion, Mumbai. They alleged that they had clearly specified their vegetarian preference twice, yet were served chicken momos instead of the vegetarian variant.

They further claimed that the outlet’s display board lacked clarity, failing to distinguish between vegetarian and non-vegetarian items. As a result, they said, their religious sentiments were deeply hurt, causing them emotional distress and mental trauma. The couple sought â‚¹6 lakh in compensation.

IMG-20250324-WA0012

The Company’s Response

The company countered these claims by producing the order invoice, which indicated that non-veg momos were ordered. They also alleged that the complainants physically assaulted a staff member and created a disturbance at the outlet. Despite this, the outlet refunded the amount and even provided the products free of cost.

To resolve the matter, the company extended a â‚¹1,200 gift voucher as a goodwill gesture. However, the complainants allegedly demanded â‚¹3 lakh each, prompting the company to accuse them of filing the complaint with malafide intent.

What the Commission Ruled

The consumer commission concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the restaurant. It observed that:

  • The invoice reflected a non-vegetarian item was ordered.
  • The offer board, while not explicitly clear on individual item types, did mention “veg/non-veg”—indicating availability of both.
  • The complainants failed to produce evidence of any disrupted religious rituals or ceremonies as claimed.
  • Most significantly, the commission questioned: “If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why did they order from a restaurant that serves both veg and non-veg instead of choosing one that is exclusively vegetarian?”

The panel also noted that a prudent consumer should be able to distinguish between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food before consuming it.

The case sheds light on a growing concern in India’s food delivery culture, responsibility and awareness while placing online or in-store orders. For those with strict dietary rules based on faith or health, the commission’s verdict reinforces the need to verify the nature of food items and, where possible, choose establishments aligned with their preferences.

In summary, while service providers have a duty to label food accurately and heed special instructions, consumers are also expected to exercise caution and discretion, especially when their personal or religious sentiments are involved.

969222
85856
WhatsApp Image 2025-05-23 at 4.18.39 PM (2