Delivery Of Non-veg Burger Instead Of Veg Burger, Gwalior District Commission Holds Zomato, Burger Buddy Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant ordered a 'Veg Chilli Loaded Burger' from Burger Buddy (“Restaurant”) using Zomato. Upon receiving the burger, the Complainant noticed that it contained certain non-veg components. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a complaint with Zomato's customer care. Zomato refunded the consideration of Rs. 175/- paid for the burger and provided an extended bonus worth Rs. 500/- to the Complainant. It also declared that the Restaurant would be dismissed from the platform. Nonetheless, the Complainant sent a legal notice to the Restaurant. Upon receiving no reply, he filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh (“District Commission”). He contended that he was a 'Hindu Kattar Brahman' and therefore, receiving a non-veg burger hurt his religious sentiments and caused severe mental agony.

Zomato contended that it was a mere intermediary between the Complainant and the Restaurant and was not liable for the oversight of the Restaurant. It further stated that it had already refunded the consideration amount paid by the Complainant. On the other hand, the Restaurant contended that it prepared and packed the burger as requested by the Complainant. The Complainant must have either replaced the components upon receiving the burger or must have placed a non-veg order in someone else's name to switch the components and file a fake complaint.

Observations of the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant receiving the refund along with the extended bonus suggested that the Restaurant had indeed made an oversight while preparing the burger. Further, the Restaurant failed to send a reply to the Complainant's legal notice. During the proceedings, the Restaurant tried to shift the blame on the Complainant by suggesting that he switched the veg components of with burger with non-veg components.

Based on the aforementioned observations, the District Commission held that the Restaurant was liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The District Commission further held that the status of an 'intermediary' does not excuse Zomato's liability. Reliance was placed on the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision in M/s Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. vs Kamer Chand (2016), wherein the agent was held liable for the oversight of the principal.

As a result, the District Commission directed Zomato and the Restaurant to pay Rs. 5000/- each (total Rs. 10,000/-) to the Complainant, as compensation for mental agony. They were also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- each (total Rs. 2,000/-) to the Complainant for legal costs.

Case Title: Aashish Sharma vs Zomato Private Limited and Anr.

Case No.: CC/137/2024

Advocate for the Complainant: Shri. Aditya Sharma

Advocate for the Opposite Party: Shri Yash Jain and Shri Rishabh Mishra