‘Ordered French fries, billed for Chicken burger’: Bengaluru man demands ₹2 cr from McDonald's, court dismissed plea

The Bengaluru vegetarian customer filed a staggering ₹2 cr compensation claim, alleging mental distress after being billed for chicken burger at McDonald's.

In what can be called as light-hearted legal drama, a 33-year-old Bengaluru's Ulsoor resident dragged McDonald’s to court after the restaurant made a simple billing goof up. The vegetarian customer filed a staggering ₹2 crore compensation claim, alleging "mental distress" after being billed for a chicken burger instead of the vegetarian French fries he had ordered.

The incident occurred at the McDonald's outlet in Lido Mall, where the complainant and his nephew had ordered vegetarian French fries.(Taste)

What is the case all about?

According to the Times of India report, the incident occurred at the McDonald's outlet in Lido Mall, where the complainant and his nephew had ordered vegetarian French fries. However, the bill mistakenly listed a McFried Chicken Burger (MFC), which is more expensive. Upon noticing the error, the customer raised the issue with the restaurant staff, who promptly apologised and offered ₹100 as compensation for the inconvenience.

Unimpressed by the gesture, he demanded a formal apology from McDonald's, which he claimed never arrived. What followed was a series of escalations: a police complaint (recorded as a non-cognizable report), an email to McDonald's, and eventually, a case filed in the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

In his complaint, the man accused the restaurant of service deficiency and sought the hefty compensation amount. McDonald’s, however, argued that the error was unintentional, immediately corrected, and followed by an apology and a refund offer. The restaurant further described the case as frivolous and an attempt to gain undue compensation.

After reviewing the evidence, the consumer court dismissed the claim. The court noted that the customer had received his vegetarian order, and the billing error did not affect his dietary preferences. It ruled that a minor mistake, rectified promptly, could not be classified as a service deficiency or justify a multi-crore compensation demand.