Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/200/2023

SURYAM S/O SH. SATISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJU CHINESE FAST FOOD THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

04 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/200/2023
Date of Institution	:	17/4/2023
Date of Decision	:	4/10/2024

 

Suryam S/o Sh. Satish Kumar, resident of House No. 1167, Sector-22 В, Chandigarh, Pin code-160022.

Versus

 

1. Sanju Chinese Fast Food, Patel Market, Sector-15, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager through its Director/Manager

 

...Opposite Party

 

2. Zomato Limited, Plot 632, Phase 2, Chandigarh Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

Performa Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Kulbir Singh Sekhon, Advocate for No.1
	:	OP No. 2 exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the Opposite party No.1 is running shop under the name Sanju Chinese Fast Food  and on 9.4.2023 the complainant placed an order for veg momos  and veg noodles  from Opposite party No.1 for his minor daughter and mother through Zomato  Opposite party No.2  for which the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.154.75. Copy of receipt is annexed as Annexure C-2 whereas copy of order placed for veg momos and veg noodles is annexed as Annexure C-3.  The complainant and his entire family is totally vegetarian and follow sanatan dharma and due to that reason veg momos  and veg noodles  were ordered by the complainant from Opposite party No.1. It is alleged that after delivery of the order the daughter and mother of the complainant opened the packed food item and started eating the same  and while eating the said food items the mother of the complainant found some bone like object in her mouth and she immediately spitted the same on the floor and noticed that it was a piece of non-veg food
      ( hereinafter referred to be as subject food items) On this the mother of the complainant who is also taking medicine of depression for last 20 years went into deep shock. The copy of medical card of the mother of the complainant is as Annexure C-4. The mother of the complainant and minor daughter  had never taken any non-veg  food in the life and as a result of wrong food item delivered by the Opposite Parties their sentiments  were have deeply affected and caused irreparable loss to the entire family. Immediately the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of the Opposite parties  but they misbehaved with the complainant. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party. Opposite party was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. Opposite party No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and also that the complainant is not consumer of the answering Opposite party and also that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the answering Opposite party. It is further alleged that in fact the complainant had purchased the subject food items  through Opposite party No.2  and the Opposite party No.1 had  handed over veg-momos and veg noodles to Opposite party No.2  being the delivery partner of the answering Opposite party and it could have mistakenly delivered the subject food item to the complainant. Moreover, packing of the food items clearly indicates about the veg or non-veg items. It is not possible that in hurry the mother of the complainant has not noticed the  aforesaid mentioning on the food packet. Not only  this, the smell of veg and non-vegetarian foods is totally different  from each other. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
   3. Opposite party No.2 was properly served and when Opposite party No.2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 19.8.2024.
   4. Rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
2. In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that the complainant had placed order for veg-momos and veg noodles  from Opposite party No.1 as is evident from Annexure C-3 copy of order details  for which the complainant has transferred an amount of Rs.154.75 in the account of Opposite party No.2 as is evident from receipt Annexure C-2 and the  subject food items were packed by Opposite party No.1  and was delivered by Opposite party No.2  to the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the Opposite Party had delivered non-veg momos and noodles to the complainant and the aforesaid act of Opposite party  amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant.
   2. In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered his affidavit in which he deposed in the manner in which the  subject food non-veg food items were delivered to the complainant, which was consumed by mother of the complainant and it was found that no-veg food items  have been delivered by the Opposite Parties. In order to rebut the aforesaid evidence the Opposite party No.2 did not turn up before this Commission whereas Opposite party No.1 has tried to shift the onus upon Opposite party No.2 for the delivery of the subject food item. However, since it has come on record that the Opposite party No.1 has prepared and packed the subject food item received by the complainant through Opposite party No.2, it is safe to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.
   3. Thus from the foregoing discussion, one thing is clear that the Opposite parties are negligent while rendering service to the complainant and wrongly delivered a non-veg food items to the complainant, which were eaten by his mother who is a pure vegetarian and thereby hurt her sentiments which caused a lot of mental agony and stress to her. Thus, the Opposite party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and Opposite parties are directed as under :-
   1. to refund ₹154.75 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint  till  onwards
   2. to pay  lumpsum amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards cost of litigation
5. This order be complied with by the Opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/10/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member