Case title:
Gargi Prakash Joshi & Anr. v. Wow Momos Foods Private Limited
Date of Order:
13th May, 2025
Bench:
Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep G. Kadu
Hon'ble Ms. Gauri M. Kapse
Parties:
Gargi Prakash Joshi – Complainants
Wow Momos Foods Private Limited - Respondent
SUBJECT
- The complainants approached the Mumbai Consumer Court, claiming that Wow Momos Pvt. Ltd. violated their religious feelings by serving them non-vegetarian momos when they explicitly requested vegetarian ones. However, the Court noted that it was unclear why the complainants chose to order from a restaurant that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food instead of choosing a restaurant that only serves vegetarian food if they were in fact strict vegetarians and non-vegetarian food violated their religious beliefs.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 35(1)(a) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- One of the following parties may file a complaint with a District Commission: (a) the customer, to whom the goods are sold, delivered, or agreed to be delivered, or the service is rendered or agreed to be rendered.
OVERVIEW
- On 19 December 2020, complainants ordered a "Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo" from Opposite Party No.1/Wow Momos Foods Private Limited at Cafe Coffee Day, Sion, Mumbai. Despite specifying their preference for vegetarian food twice, they were served non-vegetarian "Steam Chicken Darjeeling Momos" for Rs. 120/-, including a Pepsi.
- The complainants allege that the employee there served the wrong order, ignoring their instructions and not including vegetarian or non-vegetarian options for the "Steam Darjeeling Momo" combo. They claim they suffered mental trauma, religious distress, and emotional distress due to the company's negligence.
- Subsequently, they contacted the company’s Kolkata office and spoke with Niloy Chakraborty, who connected them with Mumbai management whose representative apologized and offered to meet the complainants, but no settlement was reached.
- The Complainants filed a complaint against the Opposite Parties for deficiency in service, negligence, and hurting their religious sentiments. They alleged "grave negligence" as they were supplied an item the consumer did not ask for, and seek a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- along with other relief from the Commission as it deems fit.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether complainants are entitled to seek any of the reliefs sought in the complaint?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The complainants ordered a vegetarian food item at wow momos, but were served a non-vegetarian dish, despite clearly communicating their dietary preference, and also, an employee ignored their instructions and the food menu display lacked clear labeling- not differentiating non veg from veg.
- This incident caused them mental distress and offended their religious beliefs.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It is claimed that the complainants themselves ordered non veg momos, as can be seen from the order invoice. Furthermore, there is no employee by the name of Pooja sharma, and the one who served the complainants was Roshani Parsi - who was physically abused by them.
- The complainants created unnecessary nuisance which led to them getting the food items free of cost and a refund, which essentially bars them from the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Furthermore, the options for veg and non veg have always been displayed.
- The company has a complaint book and an email ID for grievance redressal, which was not made use of by the complainants.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
No inference can be drawn there from 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. Furthermore, it is only reasonable that a prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it.
Adding onto this, the court held that the complainants have not substantiated their claim of performing Pooja and other religious ceremonies, nor have they disclosed the names of any Poojari or Pandit who performed the Pooja, nor have they disclosed the nature, name, date, and place of the ceremonies.
Thirdly, if the Complainants were strictly vegetarian and the non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then, there seems to be noo tangible reason for them 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.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above discussions, it was made evident that the complainants had failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (Wow momos).
