DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/187 of 1.9.2015

                                      Decided on:        29.3.2016

Sachin Resident of H.No.744/21, St.No.7, Guru Nanak Colony, Patiala   

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Dominos Pizza C/o The Jubilant Food Works Limited, SCO-110,Phase-II, Urban Estate, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its Manager.
2. Dominos Pizza C/o The Jubilant Food Works Limited,Registered Office B-214, Phase-II, District Gautambudh Nagar, Noida, 201305 UP.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                               

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Sukhjinder Singh , Advocate

For Ops:                       Sh.Vikas Mittal,Advocate             

                                         ORDER

A.P.S.Rajput, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant Sachin r/o H.No.744/21, St.No.7, Guru Nanak Colony, Patiala has filed this complaint against the opposite parties          ( herein after referred to as the Ops) under Section 11-14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act). The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
2. It is averred in the complaint that on 26.7.2015 at about 2.30PM the complainant  placed an order of the items i.e No.(i) three choclawa cake, (ii) one veg calzone pockets,(iii)  two chicken parcels and (iv) one veg parcel through  his mobile phone no.94179-66383 to 0175-228222 and the same was delivered at 3PM.It is averred that one veg. calzone pockets i.e. item no.ii was ordered for his mother who is fully vegetarian. It is averred that when the complainant and other family members stated eating the delivered things his mother started complaining  that this is not their regular veg calzone pocket’s taste and it’s taste is some what different and requested the complainant to take a bite of the same. The complainant took a bite of veg calzone pocket and shocked to know that the same was of nonveg. The complainant immediately opened the veg calzone pockets and found that it contained chicken pieces in it.At this the whole atmosphere of the house changed on account of the religious sentiments. It is averred that at about 3.45PM the complainant called up Urban Estate Office Dominos Pizza at No.0175-2282222 and explained them the entire instance. It is averred that two officials namely Gurwinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh came to complainant’s house  but instead of feeling guilty they started finding faults on the part of the complainant. They also suggested the complainant to send the e-mails to their higher officials. The complainant sent the e-mail  to www.dominos.co.in and  www.guestcare@jublfood.com through his e-mail ID
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops who appeared and filed the written reply. It is denied that item No. (ii) i.e. veg calzone pockets ordered by the complainant was not their regular veg calzone pockets taste and is of nonveg taste. It is alleged in the written reply that all the restaurants  of Ops are strictly bound by Standard Operating Procedures, which give extra ordinary importance to purity and orderliness and therefore, the happening of incident i.e. the supply of non veg calzone pockets is impossible. It is also alleged that all the things to be delivered to the customers are first checked up in the restaurant itself.
4. It is denied that  on the opening of veg calzone pockets, it was found that it contained chicken pieces. It is stated that on receipt of the information of the occurrence on 26.7.2015, the guest service team inquired the matter and redressed the same after the satisfaction of the complainant. It is also alleged that the closure information report has also been provided to the complainant on 27.7.2015. It is stated that no filthy language was used by the officials of the Ops. The receipt and reply of the legal notice has also been admitted by the Ops. There is no unfair trade practice or mal practice adopted by the Ops. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint , it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit, Ex.CB the sworn affidavit of Smt.Sunita Verma alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C11 and closed his evidence.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops,their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Manager of Jubiliant Food Works alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
7. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present complaint is that the OP no.1 delivered a non-vegetarian dish instead of vegetarian dish and the mother of the complainant had taken a bite of the dish and realized that it was a Non-Vegetarian .The ld. counsel also submitted that due to the negligent act of OPs, the religious sentimental value of the complainant’s mother were violated and she felt hurt. The ld. counsel stated that the OPs have not been able to rebut the evidence tendered by the complainant. The ld. counsel argued that the OPs by providing complimentary order to the complainant cannot be entitled to wash away their negligent act. He pleaded that it is well established from the evidence tendered by the complainant that the OPs have committed deficiency of service and indulged in unfair trade practice by supplying a non-vegetarian dish instead of vegetarian dish and due the negligence of the OPs the mother of the complainant had consumed a bite of the said non vegetarian dish.
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has denied all the alleged allegations and stated that the matter has already been settled between the parties. He stated that the OPs had as a gesture sent a complementary order i.e Ex-OP3 and the same was accepted by the complainant, thus the complainant has no right to approach this Forum, once the dispute between the parties had already settled. The ld. counsel pleaded that no deficiency of service has been committed by the OPs, as the OPs promptly solved the grievances of the complainant and the same is evident from Ex.OP 2 and Ex.OP3 i.e complimentary order.The ld. counsel argued the present complaint is a abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be dismissed with special costs.
9. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence produced , as well as written submissions and oral submission,it is evident from original bill dated 26/7/2015 i.e Ex.C-2 alongwith photograph of the original bill i.e Ex.C-5,photographs containing chicken pieces i.e Ex.C-2 to Ex.C4 and lid of the box of dish i.e Ex.C-11, that the complainant had ordered 4 dishes and instead of vegetarian dish i.e veg calzone pockets the OP no.1 supplied/delivered non-vegetarian dish i.e chicken calzone pockets. A bite of the same was consumed by the mother of the complainant, who is a pure vegetarian, due to religious purpose. The OPs have also tendered in their evidence copies of complimentary order supplied to the complainant i.e Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.In our opinion it is well established that the OP no.1 had supplied non-vegetarian dish i.e chicken calzone pockets instead of vegetarian dish i.e veg calzone pockets. The OPs have also not placed on record any evidence proving that the OP no.1 had supplied vegetarian dish only i.e veg calzone pockets and nor has the OP no.1 & 2 been able to establish that the dispute between the parties had already been solved between the parties. Simply by placing on record the complimentary delivery order does not establish that parties had compromised the matter. In our view the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and committed deficiency of service by negligently supplying/delivering  non-vegetarian dish i.e chicken calzone pockets instead of vegetarian dish i.e veg calzone pockets and thereby caused mental agony to the mother of complainant who had consumed a bite of the said dish.  
10. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the OPs have acted negligently and thus caused hurt to the religious sentiments of the mother of complainant by supplying non-vegetarian dish to a vegetarian religious person. Hence we direct the OP no.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- on account of litigation expenses.
11. The OP no.1& 2 are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case OPs fail to comply the same, within the stipulated period, the OPs shall be liable to pay 9 % interest per annum on the aforesaid awarded amount till its realization. The present complaint stands accepted.   
12. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 17.3.2016    and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties .Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:29.3.2016

               Sonia Bansal           Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

        Member                Member                                  President