Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/392/2023

ANIRUDH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, KFC - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT MITTAL

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/392/2023
Date of Institution	:	14.8.2023
Date of Decision	:	2/08/2024

 

Anirudh Gupta S/o Sh. Rajesh Gupta, R/o #3494, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh

 

Complainant

Versus

 

The Manager, KFC, SCO 425-26, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

Opposite party

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

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for complainant (through VC)
	:	Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Advocate for OP.

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 OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant and his wife are a regular customer of KFC. The wife of the complainant being from a Brahmin family is a hard core vegetarian.  On 3.5.2023,  the complainant ordered  chicken Bucket for himself  and one classic veg Krisper  for her wife (hereinafter to be referred as subject food items) through online app of KFC  and made payment  of Rs.696.59/-  through Google pay. Copies of receipts are annexed as Annexure C-1 toC-2.   Since the wife of the complainant is a pure vegetarian, the complainant ordered a veg Krisper for her, however, on receipt of the said order when the wife of the complainant has taken the first bite she experienced something unfamiliar and not a regular taste. Immediately she called the complainant and showed him the burger. The complainant was shocked to find that the said burger was not a vegetarian one and contained chicken stuffing in it.  Since the wife of the complainant is a pure vegetarian and she after realizing  that the said burger was a non-vegetarian immediately started vomiting. Thus due to the  aforesaid negligence act of the OP the   wife of the complainant is in mental dilemma and  under immense stress and her feeling have been affected. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of   maintainability, cause of action and concealment of facts. It is alleged that the  complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds with  malafide intention and ulterior motive to extort money from the OP and defaming its brand. The complainant has concealed the fact that the order placed vide order no. 5153109000045732 dated 03/05/2023 was a take away order which was collected by the person after checking the same who placed the order from the premises of the replying opposite party. Moreover, before the collection of any order by any customer of KFC whenever any order is placed Online on the website of KFC, it always sends massage on the mobile number which was mentioned by its customer while placing any order to KFC wherein in the said massage an online link is sent to the said customer to check the description of the order placed by said respective customer. It is further submitted here that all the Vegetarian food sold by the KFC are having a symbol of a green color-filled circle inside a square with a green outline prominently displayed on the package, contrasting against the background on the principal display panel whereas in any Non-vegetarian food (any food which contains whole or part of any animal including birds, marine animals, eggs, or products of any animal origin as an ingredient, excluding honey, milk or milk product must have a symbol of a brown color filled triangle inside a square  with a brown outline prominently displayed on the package contrasting against the background on the principal display panel.  Copy of rappers and boxes of packing of vegetarian food as well as non-vegetarian foods are enclosed herewith as  annexed as Annexure R-1 and R-4.   The OP has delivered  the item as ordered by the complainant and there is  no negligence on the part of the OP at any point of time. 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. In replication, 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 case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments on record.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the  the complainant had placed order for the subject food items i.e. one chicken bucket and one classic veg  Krisper by paying an amount of Rs.696.59/-  as is also evident from Annexure C-1&C-2 and after receiving the  delivery of the subject food items,  the complainant’s wife found that non-veg Krisper burger was delivered in place of veg krisper burger  which was  having chicken stuffing and as such hurt the sentiments of the wife of the complainant,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service  and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for or if the complaint of the complainant being not maintainable against OP is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OP.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1& C-3 clearly indicates that the complainant had ordered the subject food items i.e. one veg item and another non-veg and made payment of Rs.696.59 through Gpay to the OP. Annexure C-3  clearly indicates that the OP instead of delivering a veg Krisper burger as mentioned in the bill Annexure C-1 and
      C-2, delivered a non-veg krisper burger stuffed with chicken   which is fairly apparent from the pictures of the burger Annexure C-3 and same amounts to clear cut deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP  especially when the OP has miserably failed to rebut the evidence led by complainant by way of any cogent documentary evidence.
   3. Thus from the foregoing discussion, one thing is clear that the OP is negligent while rendering service to the complainant and wrongly delivered a non-veg food item to the wife of the complainant who is a pure vegetarian and thereby hurt her sentiments which caused a lot of mental agony and stress to her. Thus, the OP 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 OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay  an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him and his wife;
2. to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP 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) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses
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 2/08/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member