Delhi

North

CC/218/2023

SUHEL SHAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIAMOND CHICKEN BIRYANI - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 218/2023

In the matter of

Suhel Shah

Office at Chamber No. 593

Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts

Delhi- 110054

Also at, Shah House

Mohalla Peerzadgan

Tehsil Sardhana

Distt. Meerut- 250342                                                                                                         …       Complainant

Versus

Diamond Chicken Biryani

Through its Proprietor/ Authorised Person

Shop No. 12-13, QUtub Road Chowk

Sadar Bazar, New Delhi- 110006

Mobile No. 965xxxxx16                                                                                                     …       Opposite Party

 

ORDER

27/09/2023

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged that M/s Diamond Chicken Biryani (OP herein) has not served requested Biryani “with Bone-in/ Boney pieces”, but served stale and cold biryani without necessary ingredients of “chopped onion and sauce (chutney)”. Hence, the Complainant herein has filed this complaint seeking, inter alia, direction to the OP to refund of the amount paid by the Complainant for the Biryani with interest @ 24%, to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-. We have heard the arguments on admissibility of the complaint and reserved the orders on admissibility.

2. The Complainant has allegedly purchased the Biryani on 10.08.2023, and has served a legal notice on 26.08.2023 upon the OP, which was duly served. It is the case of the Complainant that the OP has not even replied to the said legal notice.

3. We have gone through the pleading and heard the arguments in detail. We could not find any proof of payment suggesting that the Complainant had made any payment to the OP for purchase of the said biryani. It has been argued that the Complainant had made cash payment to the OP. In support of his argument that he has purchased the food from the said OP restaurant, the Complainant has placed on record a photograph in which the Complainant is seen standing in front of the said outlet of OP. The said photograph is not sufficient proof that the Complainant made the purchase from the said outlet as the said outlet is a street outlet where any person on the street can take a self-photograph having the said outlet in background.

4. It is also alleged by the Complainant that the said outlet of the OP is in front of a urinal booth, which was stinking and no hygiene was maintained at the said shop. Hygiene is the first important thing that someone must observe while making a purchase, particularly of a food item. In the case in hand, although the Complainant has allegedly noticed a stinking urinal booth in front of the OP food outlet, but decided to purchase the food item from the said outlet. This is completely incomprehensible.

5. Further, we also enquired that when the food was found to be stale or unsatisfactory, what immediate steps was taken by the Complainant. In reply, he said that he requested the outlet to refund or to change the biryani as per the specification demanded, but the said outlet refused. He also said that the legal notice was sent to the said OP on 26.08.2023. We have gone through the said legal notice, which is part of the complaint. The said legal notice was sent on 26.08.2023, after 15 days from the date of incident. There is no explanation that what steps Complainant has taken complaining about the alleged food quality served by the OP outlet. In case of food joints, licence from Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is mandatory and in case of any quality issue with the food served, complaint can be filed with FSSAI or with Department of Food Safety, GNCTD or with any other statutory and/or regulatory authority. The Complainant has not made any such complaint.

6. It was only after this Commission pointed out such discrepancy; the Complainant had made a complaint to Municipal Health Officer on 25.09.2023 and filed a copy of the said complaint to this Commission. The delay in filing complaint and also not initiating appropriate action against the OP creates a doubt about the correctness of the allegations of the Complainant. The delayed action on part of the Complainant, in our opinion, appears to be an afterthought.

7. In the context of serving poor quality of food, we are aware of the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by District Forum (East), Delhi in the matter of Sandeep Saxena vs McDonalds India & Anr [CC No. 935/2014] in which the Complainant therein found insects, mosquitos and cockroach in the burger served by the OP restaurant. In the said case before District Forum- East, one of the Members of this Commission was also part of the bench passing the order. In that case, OP has also challenged the correctness of the claims of the Complainant but the District Forum (as it then was) recorded that the Complainant made complaint to the Food Safety Officer, who on the same day took sample from the said outlet. The test report of the food sample proved the allegations of the Complainant. Hence, the District Forum found corroborative evidence led by the Complainant to prove his case. This order was also upheld by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission while disposing the appeal titled McDonalds vs Sandeep Saxena [FA No. 216/2019, decided on 01.05.2019].

8. In a recent order of District Commission-1, UT Chandigarh in the matter of Ranjot Kaur vs Chili’s Restaurant [CC/543/2020, decided on 11.09.2023], the Complainant’s allegation of finding of live worm in the food was questioned by the OP therein, was also found correct District Commission. In its order, the District Commission has noted that when the Restaurant failed to address the complainant’s concerns adequately, she took the initiative to contact the police. Subsequently, a Daily Diary Report (DDR) was filed, affirming that the issue of a live worm in the food had been reported to the police with specific mention that the restaurant had not displayed empathy and had withheld the bill copy.

9. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the Complainant has actually purchased the biryani from the said OP outlet or has he immediately reported the alleged deficiency to the authorities. In such a situation, we do not find any merits in the allegations levelled by the Complainant against the OP. As a result, we are not inclined to entertain this complaint. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself. No orders to cost.

9. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

10. Order pronounced in open court.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member