BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.509 of 2018
Date of Instt. 20.12.2018
Date of Decision:15.01.2020
Manish son of Sh. Krishan Lal resident of 36-B, New Rasila Nagar, Basti Danishmanda, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Burger King through its Manager, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar.
2. The Managing Director/Director Burger King Pvt. Ltd. Corporate office: Mittal Commercial, Chimatpada Hasan Pada Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Jatinder Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Smt. Harleen Kaur, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that on 07.10.2018, complainant had ordered two burgers Crispy Veg. for himself and his wife. The burgers were supplied to him. The complainant started eating the burger and after eating half of the burger, he came to know that it was a non-veg. burger. On account of which his stomach got upset and vomiting sensation started.
2. That the complainant is pure vegetarian person and by giving a non veg. burger to a vegetarian person, his religious feeling has been hurt. The OP No.1 has outraged the religious feeling of the complainant with malafide intention and thereafter, the complainant was gone to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar on 08.10.2018 for gastric infection and mouth sores. He is still suffering from same problems. A separate complaint was also submitted to the Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar, which is still pending. Videography was done by the complainant at the spot, wherein the manager of Burger King admitted his guilt. There is great deficiency and negligence in services on the part of OPs and whereby the complainant has suffered a great mental tension, agony and harassment apart from humiliation and as such, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.30,000/- as medical expenses and be also directed to refund the price of the burger i.e Rs.67/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till its realization and further, OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed a joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has wrongly impleaded the director of the company as OP No.2, who has no involvement in the alleged incident of serving non vegetarian burger at Jalandhar outlet, and thus deserves to be deleted from the array of OPs. It is further averred that the instant complaint is not maintainable as the averments made therein failed to show any willful defect, fault, imperfection or shortcoming on the part of the OPs. It is further alleged that the complainant is guilty of suppressing material facts from the Forum and as such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and further submitted that the veracity and genuineness of the alleged videos cannot be proved under the summary procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had ordered two burgers from the Jalandhar outlet of OP on 07.10.2018 and further submitted that as per internal enquiry conducted by the OP, due to an unintended human error, the complainant was served a non-vegetarian burger, instead of the vegetarian burger. However, the mistake was immediately pointed out by the complainant, who had not yet eaten the non-veg. burger and the staff concerned after offering an apology for the unintentional error, offered to replace the said burger. The complainant has deliberately and with a malafide intent made false and concocted allegations that his stomach got upset. Even the issuance of the Invoice is also admitted and further submitted that the packing of the burger clearly indicates the different symbols of veg./non veg. products as mandated under law. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that there is no malafide intention on the part of the OP or its employee. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed.
5. In order to prove their respective case, both the parties placed on the file their respective documents alongwith the pleadings.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties as well as case file very minutely.
7. Out-rightly, the OPs have admitted the allegations of the complainant that a non-veg. burger was supplied to the complainant, whereas the complainant has ordered for veg. burger and further admitted by the OPs that the said act is not intentionally and rather the concerned employee of the Burger Centre has already apologized for the un-intentional error, despite that the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
8. Now, question remains before us that after committing a such like blunder mistake, the director of the renowned Burger Company stated in his written statement that the non-veg. burger was supplied to the complainant inadvertently. We find that this is not a simple negligence rather it is a grave negligence on the part of the OP No.2 as well as its franchise/OP No.1. The OP has not only committed a grievous negligence rather also played with the religious feeling of the complainant, after hurting the religious feeling of the complainant, the OPs alleged in the written statement that the said act was not intentional, is not acceptable, apologized or version of the OP. It is bounded duty of the seller, director or its franchise to be aware regarding order placed by any customer. It is not a small thing to supply a non-veg. burger to a person, who has ordered for veg. burger. The question is not, here to see, whether the complainant is vegetarian or not, the main thing revolving around the non-veg. burger, which was never ordered by the complainant. If any one came to the OP and demand a Coca-Cola drink and instead of Coca-Cola drink, the employee of the OP supply a small bottle of wine to the customer and then alleged that it is inadvertently, but these type of mistakes are not acceptable in our society or even the law does not permit to the seller to supply any article, which is not ordered by the complainant/consumer, if did so, then it is grave negligence as well as unfair trade practice and similarly in this case happened that the OPs have committed a grave negligence as well as unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and further the ruling referred by the learned counsel for the OPs are not having the similar facts as of the complaint in hand. So, accordingly, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the price of two burgers i.e Rs.67/- and further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing grave negligence, mental tension, physical harassment to the complainant and further, OPs are directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
15.01.2020 Member President
