Electronic Evidence Must Be Reviewed Properly: Uttarakhand State Commission Remands Matter Involving Domino's Back To District Forum
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral, remanded a matter involving Domino's Pizza back to the District Commission on the ground of irregular and inadequate examination of electronic evidence. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant and his family, being strict vegetarians, placed an online order with Domino's for a vegetarian pizza, taco,...
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral, remanded a matter involving Domino's Pizza back to the District Commission on the ground of irregular and inadequate examination of electronic evidence.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant and his family, being strict vegetarians, placed an online order with Domino's for a vegetarian pizza, taco, and choc lava cake. The order was delivered to the residence, and was paid in full. After consuming the taco, the complainant realized it was non-vegetarian, which caused him to fall ill. He experienced mental, physical, and financial distress due to this incident. Although he filed a complaint with the police, no action was taken. The complainant claimed that Domino's had provided the wrong food and filed a case before the District Commission. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed Domino's to refund the amount spent on the order, pay Rs. 4,50,000 towards mental, physical and economic agony & Rs. 15,000 towards litigation charges, along with special damages of Rs. 5,00,000. Consequently, Domino's appealed before the State Commission of Uttarakhand, challenging the District Commission's order.
Contentions of Domino's
Domino's argued that the order placed by the complainant was correctly fulfilled, and there was no mistake in the delivery. They stated that all non-veg items are clearly marked with a red sticker, while the vegetarian taco was delivered in a box with a green sticker, as is standard. This fact was also acknowledged by the complainant in his complaint. Domino's further pointed out that the complainant did not provide any proof to support his claim of falling ill after consuming the taco. Additionally, they argued that the complainant's claim about the police's inaction showed that his allegations were false and fabricated. Domino's denied any deficiency in service and requested the dismissal of the complaint. Domino's filed an application before the District Commission requesting the CD attached with the consumer complaint. The application was recorded, but the District Commission did not decide on it before proceeding with the case.
Observations by the State Commission
The State Commission noted that the CD, being electronic evidence, should have been reviewed properly, allowing Domino's the opportunity to examine and challenge it with reliable evidence. The complainant did not oppose the application, as shown in the order-sheet. It was observed that since the District Commission failed to address the application, the Commission found the decision invalid. The State Commission found irregularities in the District Commission's proceeding and remanded the case to the District Commission to first decide on the application and then proceed with the consumer complaint as per the law. The State Commission set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Domino's Pizza Vs. Sh. Shivang Mittal
Case Number: F.A. No. 108/2022