Failing to provide refund for wrong order lands Ludhiana eatery in soup

For failing to provide a refund after delivering the wrong order, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a Ludhiana-based restaurant to return the ₹266 paid for the meal along with ₹1,500 composite cost

For failing to provide a refund after delivering the wrong order, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a Ludhiana-based restaurant to return the ₹266 paid for the meal along with ₹1,500 composite cost.

The commission in its order stated that It can be safely held that the complainant ordered vegetarian items, but the restaurant inadvertently delivered non-vegetarian items. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Submitting his complaint against Cannaught Plaza Restaurant near Jagraon Bridge through its director, Amandeep Singh of Ludhiana accused the eatery of deficient services.

He stated that on December 7, 2020, he had placed an order for home delivery of vegetarian items amounting to ₹266, including GST, and made the payment online. However, the restaurant wrongly delivered non-vegetarian items to him.

Amandeep lodged a complaint with the restaurant and they agreed to send him the correct items on the same day. The complainant returned the non-veg items, but the correct items were not delivered. When he called the restaurant, the staff allegedly misbehaved and abused him.

The complainant recorded the conversation and sought ₹50,000 compensation on account of deficiency in services.

However, the counsel of the eatery contended that the complaint was false and frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. “No evidence has been produced on record that the items delivered to the complainant were non-vegetarian. Moreover, the complainant himself agreed that there was no malafide intention on part of the restaurant and thus the complaint is not maintainable,” contended the counsel for the restaurant.

Meanwhile, the commission in its order observed that, “It is not clearly mentioned in the invoice whether the food items are vegetarian or non-vegetarian. it is the duty of the outlet to mention it and therefore, it has to be presumed that the complainant ordered vegetarian items.”

The commission further stated, “It can be safely held that the complainant ordered vegetarian items, but the restaurant inadvertently delivered non-vegetarian items. Even if there was no malafide intention, yet, in our considered view, it amounts to deficiency of service and it would be just if the restaurant is made to refund the amount in the invoice amounting to ₹266 along with composite cost of ₹ 1,500.”