The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Additional), has dismissed a complaint filed by two individuals against Wow Momos, ruling that there was no deficiency in service after the complainants alleged they were served non-vegetarian food despite specifying a vegetarian preference.
The panel, in its order passed last month, questioned the rationale behind ordering food from a restaurant that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian items if the complainants’ religious sentiments were so strongly tied to dietary preferences. “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… from the restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian,” the commission observed.
The Complaint and Allegations
The dispute stemmed from an order placed on December 19, 2020, by the complainants at a Wow Momos outlet in Sion, Mumbai. They ordered a steamed ‘Darjeeling momo combo’ along with a soft drink and claimed to have clearly indicated their preference for vegetarian food — allegedly on two occasions.
However, they alleged they were served “chicken Darjeeling momos” and accused the outlet of negligence, stating that the combo board failed to clearly mention veg/non-veg options. Claiming mental trauma, emotional distress, and injury to religious sentiments, they sought ₹6 lakh in compensation.
Company’s Defence
Wow Momos denied the allegations, stating that the invoice showed the complainants had, in fact, ordered non-vegetarian momos. The company also alleged that the complainants misbehaved with the outlet staff and created a scene, prompting the restaurant to refund the order and serve the food for free.
Additionally, the company argued that due to the refund, the complainants could not be classified as “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act. Despite the incident, Wow Momos claimed it had offered a ₹1,200 gift voucher as a goodwill gesture, but the complainants instead demanded ₹3 lakh each. The company alleged the complaint was filed with malafide intent to harass.
Commission’s Findings
The commission noted that the complainants failed to prove any deficiency in service. It found the invoice supported the restaurant’s claim that non-veg momos were ordered. The panel also observed, “a prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming.”
While acknowledging that the combo offer board was not fully clear, it pointed out that the board did mention “veg/non-veg” options, indicating both were available.
The commission also found that the complainants did not produce any evidence of religious ceremonies being affected, as claimed.
Finding no merit in the allegations and observing no deficiency in service, the commission dismissed the complaint.
