Wow Momo Case: Mumbai Court Dismisses ₹6 Lakh Claim Over Non-Veg Food Mix-Up

This week, a two-member bench of the Mumbai Suburban Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cleared the spotlight by dismissing a high-profile consumer complaint against Wow Momos Food Private Limited, a popular fast-food chain.

The complaint was about allegations that Wow Momos served non-vegetarian momos to individuals who claimed to have a religious opposition to the consumption of meat.

The decision, which was handed down on May 13, 2025, brought up some very sharp concerns regarding the responsibilities of consumers when it comes to picking food outlets, particularly for individuals who adhere to very specific dietary preferences.

The case originated from an event that took place in December 2020, when the complainants, Gargi Prakash Joshi and Jitesh Mundhwa, both of whom were residents of Dadar, made an order at Wow Momos’ outlet, which was located within a Café Coffee Day location in the suburbs of Mumbai.

In addition to a beverage, they wanted a “Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo” that included vegetarian momos among other items. Nevertheless, the complaint states that chicken momos were supplied instead of the service that was requested.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

As a result of their feelings of resentment, the two individuals said that their religious feelings had been injured, arguing that they had experienced mental discomfort and emotional trauma. They also requested compensation in the amount of six lakh rupees for the lack of service, mental harassment, and harm to their religious sensitivities.

That being said, Wow Momos said that the invoice unmistakably displayed a momo order that was not vegetarian, hence highlighting the fact that the individuals who lodged the complaint had made the purchase themselves.

The firm provided video footage of the computerized invoice as well as images that substantiated their menu board, which provided evidence of distinct sections for vegetarian and non-vegetarian options. The complainants reportedly denied the restaurant’s offer of a refund and a goodwill gift certificate by the amount of Rs 1,200. Additional evidence included documents that demonstrated that the business provided both of these things.

During the course of the hearings, the judicial panel, which was comprised of President Pradeep G. Kadu and Member Gauri M. Kapse, thoroughly examined the accusations that were made by the complainants.

Specifically, they stressed that there was no evidence given to demonstrate that Gargi and Jitesh had made an order for vegetarian food. There was a clear indication that the invoice contained non-vegetarian momos, and the complainants were unable to present any purchase document or correspondence that indicated a different order. The invoice was flagged many times.

A wise consumer, particularly one who is claiming religious damage, should be able to differentiate between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food before consuming it, according to the court’s observation.

The judge stated that even the images that were provided by the complainants did not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether or not the momos were vegetarian. The photographs had the impression of being unclear, and the visual evidence did not permit any decisive inferences to be drawn.

In the meanwhile, the photo of the menu board indicated that although it did not provide clear clarification regarding the nature of the combination, it did have labeling at the bottom stating that both vegetarian and non-vegetarian alternatives were available. This suggests that buyers were provided with adequate notice at the moment of purchase.

The question that struck at the heart of the complaint argument was perhaps the most inquisitive one that was made by the bench. If the consumption of meat was such a significant violation of their religious values, then why did they choose to place their order from a commercial institution that included non-vegetarian foods rather than from a restaurant that solely served vegetarian food? It was pointed out by the commissioners that a person who adheres to rigorous vegetarian ideas, whose feelings are closely connected to religious teaching, would naturally shun establishments that provide both meat and vegetarian food.

They stated that the sheer act of visiting a dual-menu business caused reasonable doubt about the alleged religious hurt that had occurred.

In addition, the court did not find any merit in the allegations that the religious observance was disturbed. Following the lunch mix-up, the petitioners had charged that there was interference with the arrangements for the puja, which is a religious rite; however, they failed to offer any specifics, like the name of the priest, the date, the time, or the place.

Noting that the claim of spiritual injury remained unfounded in the absence of any supporting evidence, the bench made this observation.

Regarding the issue of redressal, the steps taken by the restaurant had been emphasized as attempts to rectify the problem. These activities included the processing of a refund and the provision of a gift certificate.

An other component of the company’s defense was the presentation of testimony that disputed the involvement of any employee mentioned by the complainants and asserted that the diners had behaved inappropriately toward the staff, although the court did not linger significantly on the latter argument.

The petitioners had requested a cash compensation of three lakh rupees apiece; however, the bench came to the conclusion that there was no rationale for such compensation because there was no concrete proof of either financial loss or mental suffering.

After taking all of these aspects into consideration, the commission came to the conclusion that the complainants had not been able to satisfy the evidential burden that was obligatory under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. They did not provide evidence of a lack of service, indicate that a breach of contract had occurred, or establish that they had suffered a tangible emotional or religious damage. This resulted in the petition being rejected in its entirety.

Legal professionals who were following the case made the observation that it exemplifies a delicate equilibrium in consumer jurisprudence. As a result of the courts’ growing willingness to investigate the decisions made by consumers, particularly in cases where claims concern religious or emotional injury, tougher evidence requirements are being demanded in situations when the acts of the complainant itself bring doubt.

The verdict highlights the fact that consumer protection laws do not exonerate consumers from responsibility for the decisions they make about their purchases, nor do they provide a blanket cover for every alleged breach in service.

When it comes to the economic side of things, the ruling has larger ramifications for food service firms that operate at the confluence of cultural sensitivity and nutritional variety. By placing an emphasis on clear menu labeling and the importance that visual displays play, the bench is taking a step toward reaffirming transparency as an essential component of providing excellent customer service.

It is now possible to anticipate that establishments that provide mixed menus will be required to take active means to differentiate goods, both digitally and physically, and to guarantee that customers have access to all of the relevant information prior to placing an order.

The ruling serves as a warning tale for customers, advising them to make their choices crystal clear, to retain records of their orders, and to select service providers that are in accordance with their tastes and ideals.

In the event that vegetarianism is a matter of faith, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that one’s food choices are in accordance with one’s beliefs. This is especially true when entering businesses that provide a variety of dietary alternatives.

At the end of the day, the decision that the commission reached in the case of Gargi Prakash Joshi and others vs Wow Momos Food Pvt. Ltd. reaffirms the notion that consumer protection does not provide unrestricted permission for claims that are not supported by facts.

As courts all over India struggle to deal with a changing consumer world that is defined by intricate menus, a wide range of preferences, and heightened sensitivities, they are developing a more stringent, evidence-based approach to redress that is anchored in personal accountability and informed choice.