Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/649/2022

Sudeep Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kalsang Restaurant - Opp.Party(s)

Deepanshu Mehta

08 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/649/2022
Date of Institution	:	29/06/2022
Date of Decision	:	08/11/2023

 

Sudeep Goel, S/o Sh.Om Parkash Goel, aged 48 years, R/o H.No.192, Sector 16A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Kalsang Restaurant, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its General Manager.
2. Zomato Ltd., having its registered office at ground floor 12A, 94, Meghdoot, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its General Manger.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	OP No.1 ex-parte.
	:	Ms.Kusum Kaushik, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had placed an order on 13.11.2021 through OP No.2 and the total amount paid by complainant was Rs.2,149.35 (Annexure C-1 & C-2). The consumption of the order received complainant was utterly shocked that the said order was non-vegetarian. Thereafter, the complainant immediately informed OP No.2/service provider who instantly took a step back and tried to shift the burden on the OP No.1/restaurant. Thereafter the complainant contacted OP No.1 through what’s app conversation. But surprisingly the OP No.1 rather than appreciating the depth of the harm caused, blatantly offered refund of one of the dish in the order (Annexure C-3). The serious loss to the religious, moral, ethical code of complainant has occurred due to the careless approach adopted by the OPs who have served the non-vegetarian dish in the vegetarian box containing green label depicting “Veg”. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 20.12.2021 (Annexure C-4). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP No.1 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.1 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 10.04.2023.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that it is not responsible for the acts/conducts/omissions on the part of the concerned restaurants including the preparation of the food or its packaging. It is only an intermediary/online ordering platform and cannot be a party to or control in any manner for any sale transaction on the website/mobile application (Annexure R-1) colly. It is further stated that the said food which was duly prepared, packed and delivered by the concerned restaurant i.e., OP No.1. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     No rejoinder filed by the complainant.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     It is evident from Annexure C-2, the copy of the bill that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,149.35 on 13.11.2021 for the order of food items given to OP No.1 through online app of OP No.2.
8.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that he ordered vegetarian food, but instead of sending the ordered vegetarian food, the OPs due to their careless attitude sent non-vegetarian food at the place of the complainant which was by mistake consumed by his family which destroyed their moral code being pure vegetarian family. Thereafter, the complainant repeatedly requested the OP No.1 for sending an apology in written and to come compensate, but to no avail. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
9.     Significantly, OP No.1 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.1 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.1 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
10.     The stand taken by OP No.2 the Zomato Ltd. through which the order was placed by the complainant is that it is mere a platform to get the food orders done and thereafter delivered the order at the door stop of the complainant. Hence, it cannot be held liable/responsible for the acts/conducts/omissions on the part of OP No.1 restaurant as the preparation as well as the packing of food was done by the restaurant itself.
11.     After going through the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the wrong food packet was sent at the place of the complainant which was consumed by his family. The consumption of non-vegetarian food by mistake was shocking and certainly the family members of the complainant were hurt as their religious sentiments were shaken by the act and conduct of the OPs. Perusal of Annexure C-3, various messages between the complainant and OP No.1 restaurant clearly reveal that the despite admitting its fault the OP No.1 neither settled the matter with the complainant earlier nor stood present during the proceedings of the present case. In our opinion, this is the adamant attitude of OP No.1 only which forced the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. Hence, the act of OP No.1 for not providing proper services pertinently, non-appearing during the proceedings of the present case proves deficiency in services on its part and its indulgence in unfair trade practice.
12.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹2,149.35 the bill amount paid by the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
4. to pay another cost of ₹20,000/- which shall be deposited by OP No.1 with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGI, Chandigarh and receipt be produced before this Commission.

13.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) & (iv) above.
14.     As there is no cogent evidence on record to show the deficiency in service of OP No.2. Hence, the consumer complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
15.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
16.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
08/11/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member