The Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (Rural), has directed a restaurant to pay ₹25,000 in compensation after it served a non-vegetarian dish to a customer who had ordered vegetarian food, holding that the lapse hurt the customer’s religious sentiments and amounted to deficiency in service.
The commission ordered the restaurant to pay ₹20,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards legal expenses. In its ruling, the commission observed that such an incident could “deeply affect the religious sentiments of a Hindu Brahmin family,” entitling the complainant to compensation.
What led to the complaint
The case relates to a resident of Shela who visited a club’s restaurant in the Bopal area of Ahmedabad on March 7, 2024, along with his sister and brother-in-law. The family had ordered veg makkhanwala along with other food items. However, they were mistakenly served murg makkhanwala, a chicken-based dish.
According to the complaint, the family realised the error only after consuming a portion of the dish, which caused them mental distress and hurt their religious beliefs, as they strictly follow vegetarian food practices.
Restaurant admits mistake
The restaurant management acknowledged that the incident occurred due to an error by its staff. It submitted before the commission that the waiter had mistakenly entered the wrong order into the computer system, leading to the non-vegetarian dish being served.
The restaurant also tendered a written apology to the customer and offered a complimentary meal in an attempt to make amends. However, the customer approached the consumer forum, initially seeking ₹30 lakh in compensation for the alleged deficiency in service.
Commission’s observations
Rejecting the restaurant’s defence, the commission stated that merely offering an apology or a complimentary meal could not undo the harm caused. It also dismissed the argument that customers with strict vegetarian or religious food preferences should only dine at pure vegetarian restaurants.
“When a Hindu Brahmin family is served a non-vegetarian dish instead of the vegetarian dish they ordered, it can understandably cause distress and hurt their religious sentiments,” the commission noted, adding that the restaurant could not evade accountability by citing human error alone.
Deficiency in service established
The commission concluded that serving a non-vegetarian dish instead of a vegetarian item amounted to a serious lapse and deficiency in service. It held the restaurant responsible for the mistake and directed it to compensate the complainant accordingly.
The order has once again highlighted the responsibility of restaurants to exercise caution in handling food orders, particularly in a country where dietary choices are often closely linked to religious and cultural beliefs.