Legal News: Mumbai Consumer Court Rejects ₹6 Lakh Claim by Vegetarian Complainants Over Chicken Momos
Mumbai, May 30, 2025 – In a notable ruling that emphasizes personal responsibility and judicial restraint, the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai dismissed a ₹6 lakh compensation claim filed by two strict vegetarians from Dadar. The complainants alleged that a restaurant served them non-vegetarian food—specifically chicken momos—which they claimed hurt their religious sentiments and disrupted a planned religious ceremony.
The two complainants contended that they had ordered vegetarian momos through an online platform but were allegedly delivered non-vegetarian “steam Darjeeling chicken momos.” They claimed that the incident caused them immense mental agony, spiritual trauma, and religious violation. Seeking ₹6 lakh in compensation, they argued that the restaurant’s supposed negligence had made them unwilling participants in a practice contrary to their faith.
However, the Commission, after reviewing the evidence, found no merit in their claims. In its order dated May 30, 2025, the Commission pointed out that the invoice clearly indicated the order was for non-vegetarian chicken momos, not vegetarian ones. It noted that there was no discrepancy in the delivery and that the restaurant had fulfilled the exact order placed by the complainants.
What stood out in the court’s reasoning was its sharp observation on the consumers' own conduct. The bench questioned why individuals who are strict vegetarians—and who claim that consuming non-vegetarian food severely impacts their religious beliefs—would choose to place an order from a restaurant that serves both vegetarian and non-vegetarian items. The Commission stated that individuals with such deeply held dietary and religious beliefs should exercise due diligence and order only from purely vegetarian establishments, where the risk of such an issue arising is non-existent.
Furthermore, the complainants failed to provide any concrete evidence of the alleged religious ceremony being disrupted or of any documented mental trauma. The court noted that no official complaint or record of the supposed puja was submitted. In the absence of tangible loss or suffering, the panel concluded that the complainants’ demand for financial compensation lacked any legal foundation.
The judgment reiterates a core principle in consumer protection law: compensation cannot be awarded based on abstract claims or subjective hurt. There must be a demonstrable deficiency in service, material evidence, and measurable loss. In this case, none of those thresholds were met.
In dismissing the claim, the court emphasized that consumer forums are not venues for speculative or emotion-driven litigation. Rather, they are platforms for redressing genuine grievances where actual harm or financial loss can be established.
This decision serves as a cautionary precedent against the misuse of consumer rights and underscores the importance of buyer responsibility. It also subtly reinforces the principle that religious sentiments, while respected, cannot be used to bypass personal accountability in transactional matters.
