DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Swarleen Kaur d/o Late Sh. Satnam Singh, #257, BCW Surajpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula

                   --- Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s KAVA Restaurant, SCO No. 14, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:        LAKSHMAN SHARMA                                  PRESIDENT

MADHU MUTNEJA                                       MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                     MEMBER

Argued By:             Ms. Rajni Chopra, Authorized Agent of Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant had taken her friends to KAVA Restaurant to celebrate her birthday party. Out of the nine persons, who visited the Restaurant, four were non-vegetarians. The Complainant ordered “Veg Hakka Noodles-1, Phad Phak Prio Wan (Thai Sweet & Sour Vegetables)-1 and Nawabi Tarkari Biryani-1”. It is alleged that the Restaurant served a non-vegetarian dish with prawns instead of Phad Phak Prio Wan. The Complainant and her friends had even consumed part of the said dish, and were highly shocked, which in turn spoiled the party mood. It is averred that one of Complainant’s friends - Sudesh Nain was engulfed with nausea and a feeling of vomiting. The entire group complained to the Restaurant Manager after the non-vegetarian dish was served, who admitted the mistake and offered not to charge for the food, beverages and deserts that had not yet been served and said that on the dishes that had already been served, a discount of 25% would be given on the total billed amount. The Complainant claims that these efforts do not absolve the KAVA Restaurant of its responsibility of causing great distress to persons who were vegetarians. As the personal and religious feelings of the entire group were greatly hurt due to the mistake made by the Restaurant in serving a non-vegetarian dish of prawns, the Complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.  

3.                Opposite Party, in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the answering Opposite Party had only provided the dishes, as ordered by the persons, who were being served at the table. It is denied that any dish, which was not ordered, was delivered or wrongly delivered; and that the persons started feeling uneasy, as alleged, after having the dish, served by the Restaurant. It is also denied that the Complainant was served prawns instead of the Thai Sweet & Sour Vegetables. The dishes were supplied strictly, as per the order placed.  No complaint was ever lodged by the Complainant. The Complainant continued to enjoy the services of the Restaurant, as is evident from the bill. It is asserted that there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. It is denied that the Restaurant did not charge for the dishes ordered after the placing of the first order. The bill categorically shows that the same has been billed to the account of the Complainant. The Complainant is trying to seek an undue benefit of the discount as was offered. On that particular day, the Restaurant was offering a discount of 25% on production of proof of the person dining at the Restaurant having his/her birthday. The percentage of discount may also vary from time to time. The discount was given by the Manager present after recording his satisfaction therein. The discount was hence given as the Complainant was celebrating her birthday. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.                Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the authorized representative of the Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have perused the record.

6.                The Complainant who had visited the Opposite Party along with her friends on the occasion of celebration of her birthday and had planned to serve food and beverages celebrating the same. All the members of the party had preferred to order a common meal, preferably vegetarian, keeping in view the personal food habits, as well as religious inclinations. The Complainants having ordered different dishes as mentioned in para 2 including the Phad Phak Prio Wan (Thai Sweet & Sour Vegetables) which is definitely a vegetarian recipe. However, when the meals were served, the Complainant claims that instead of aforesaid dish, served a non-vegetarian dish of prawns. One of the guests of the Complainant, namely Rajni Chopra who happened to be familiar with such dishes declared that the dish contain prawns and was a non-vegetarian preparation. The Complainant is aggrieved for the reason that her particular guests who were purely vegetarian out of ignorance have consumed the non-vegetarian dish and on coming to know about it felt deeply hurt, as well as nauseated.        

7.                The Complainant had duly raised objection with the Manager of the Opposite Party who is claimed to have felt sorry  and even offered to give discount on the bill. The Complainants having refused to the offer of discount on the bill paid the entire consideration. However, at the same time, demanded compensation, which was refused. 

8.                The Opposite Parties while defending any wrong doing on their part, as alleged through the present complaint, has claimed that there was no such happening of serving of a wrong dish, or any such issue came to its knowledge and while relying upon the bills of sale, tendered by the Complainant, Opposite Party has claimed that the entire meal served upon the Complainant and her guests was as per the order placed and subsequently, the bill too mentions the meals ordered by the Complainant. The Opposite Party thus denied all the allegations of the Complainant. 

9.                We have minutely gone through the complaint as well as the documents tendered with it.  The Complainant who seems to be a simple person has drafted her complaint in a manner that only highlights the occurrence of the event on the day when the Opposite Party had served a non-veg. dish whereas the Complainant while entertaining her guests had made it sure that only vegetarian dish were ordered.  The complaint of the Complainant is duly supported by her detailed affidavit repeating the averments of the complaint. The complaint has also tendered the proof of payment as well as the receipt issued by the Opposite Party, even the discount of 25% offered by the Opposite Party as per their bill was ignored and the same stands substantiated that the Complainant made a payment of Rs.1301/-; whereas, the stand taken by the Opposite Party with regard to the discount is that on the given date, the food which was ordered by the Complainant was otherwise ordered without discount and the offered discount claimed by the Complainant on account of its deficiency was actually the offered price prevalent on the given date. Whereas the Opposite Party did not bring on record any proof to substantiate its stand by bringing on record any copy of banner, discount voucher, which was displayed on the given date for the knowledge of the general public informing them of any such offer.

10.              The Complainant alongwith her guests were present on the premises of the Opposite Party and the simple denial on the part of the Opposite Party controverting the averments of the complaint without bringing any cogent evidence cannot be believed. The Opposite Party should have brought on record in the manner of the recording of CCTV cameras installed or even the affidavit of the floor captain who had taken the order of the Complainant and was even witness to the service of the alleged non-veg. dish. Hence, in the absence of any trustworthy evidence, the defence of the Opposite Party does not sustain.

11.              Though the Opposite Party while falsifying the claim of the Complainant has mentioned that even after the happening of bad experience as claimed by the Complainant, the Complainant along with her friends continued to enjoy the service of the Opposite Party by ordering deserts and coffee. Whereas, the Complainant in her present complaint has pleaded that it was only to change the mood of the party, and tied over their bad experience that she had ordered coffee & desert for her guests, and the same in no manner can absolve the Opposite Party of its wrong doing. We are of the considered view that the Opposite Party were definitely deficient in rendering proper service by serving a non-vegetarian dish which was not at all ordered and thereby having caused bad taste as well as offending the religious beliefs of its customers. We are also of the view that hurting the religious sentiments of a customer may not constitute a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but at the same time, serving of a non-veg. dish to a vegetarian person certainly amounts to deficiency in service, for which the Complainant needs to be adequately compensated.       

12.              In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]     To pay Rs.15,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[b]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

13.              The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] of para 12 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

14.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12^th April, 2013.                                           

Sd/-

                                                          (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

                                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER