The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Domino’s Pizza India and Jubilant Food Works Limited accountable for serving an “unhygienic food item” after a customer alleged that a dead bee was found inside a pizza served at one of the company’s outlets in Punjab.
While the commission upheld the finding of deficiency in service against the fast-food chain, it reduced the compensation awarded by the district consumer forum from ₹1 lakh to ₹10,000 and directed the amount to be deposited with the PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund instead of being paid to the complainants.
The order was passed on May 6 by a bench comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary, president of the state commission, and member Simarjot Kaur while deciding an appeal filed by Jubilant Food Works Limited and Domino’s Pizza India against a June 5, 2025 order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
The dispute arose from an incident on June 24, 2021, when advocate Gurpyar Singh and another customer visited a Domino’s outlet and ordered two pizzas and soft drinks worth ₹1,060.94. According to the complaint, they discovered a dead bee or fly in one of the pizzas while eating.
The complainants alleged that they immediately informed the outlet staff, but the manager instead asked them not to create a scene before other customers and behaved rudely. One of the complainants later reportedly suffered stomach pain and vomiting and sought treatment at the Government Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh.
The matter was also raised on Twitter, now known as X, where Domino’s customer care apologised for the “unpleasant experience” and asked for further details regarding the incident.
Following the incident, the complainants sent a legal notice and approached the consumer commission seeking ₹20 lakh in compensation along with litigation costs.
The district commission partly allowed the complaint and awarded ₹1 lakh towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Challenging that order, Domino’s and Jubilant Food Works argued before the state commission that the allegations were unsupported by scientific evidence and based only on unauthenticated photographs.
The company claimed it maintained strict hygiene standards at its outlets, including pest-control systems, insect-killer machines and regular sanitation measures. It also argued that pizzas are baked at nearly 515 degrees Fahrenheit for over five minutes, making it unlikely that an insect could remain intact if it had actually been present during the baking process.
The appellants further contended that no laboratory analysis of the pizza had been conducted in accordance with Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and questioned the medical records relied upon by the complainants.
The state commission, however, found enough material to support the consumers’ allegations. It relied on photographs of the pizza, the order slip dated June 24, 2021, medical records and screenshots of the social media interaction between the complainants and Domino’s customer care.
According to the commission, the apology issued through Domino’s official social media handle amounted to an admission regarding the lapse. The bench concluded that the complainants had successfully established that an unhygienic pizza had been served to them.
At the same time, the commission observed that the ₹1 lakh compensation granted by the district forum was excessive considering the food bill amounted to slightly over ₹1,000.
“It is pertinent to observe that the Appellants/OPs need to be penalised serving unhygienic food item to the Respondents/Complainants,” the commission said while modifying the earlier order.
The commission directed that ₹10,000 be deposited with the “Director PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund” at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research within three weeks.
It also ordered that ₹10,000 out of the ₹50,000 already deposited by the company while filing the appeal be transferred to the welfare fund, while the remaining amount along with accrued interest would be returned to the appellants after the limitation period expires.
