In a recent verdict that has caught the attention of many, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Chandigarh has made a decisive ruling against the local branch of Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) situated in Sector 35 of the city. The commission has mandated the manager of this KFC outlet to compensate a vegetarian customer with Rs 12,000. This fine was imposed following an incident where the customer received a non-vegetarian burger instead of the vegetarian one she had ordered.

The incident came to light through the complaint of Anirudh Gupta, a Chandigarh resident who, along with his wife, frequents KFC. Gupta's wife, who comes from a Brahmin family, strictly adheres to a vegetarian diet. Detailing the events in his complaint, Gupta explained that on the 3rd of May, 2023, he placed an order consisting of a chicken bucket for himself and a classic vegetarian crisper burger for his wife using KFC's online app. The total for this order amounted to Rs 696.59, which he paid through UPI.

However, the order that was delivered held an unpleasant surprise. Gupta recounted the moment his wife took her first bite of the burger, only to immediately realize that something was amiss. "When my wife took the first bite of the burger delivered to us, she experienced something unfamiliar. She immediately called me and showed me the burger. I was shocked to find that the burger had chicken," Gupta stated. The realization was particularly distressing as his wife, being a devout vegetarian, reacted severely and began vomiting upon discovering the mistake.

Gupta highlighted the gravity of the situation in his complaint, pointing out that the error on part of the KFC manager had caused not only a dietary violation but also significant mental distress to his wife.

The defense presented by the KFC manager took a sharply contrasting stance to the allegations made by the complainant. In his defense, the manager accused the customers of orchestrating a false case, purportedly to extort money and tarnish the reputation of the KFC brand. “The complaint has been filed on false and frivolous grounds with malafide intention and ulterior motive to extort money from KFC and defame the brand," the KFC manager alleged. He further asserted that the order was a takeaway, which was supposedly checked and confirmed by the customer at the premises before leaving: “The complainant concealed that the order placed was a takeaway order which was collected by the person after checking the same on the premises.”

KFC’s defense also included a procedural argument, claiming that the chain has a robust system for order verification. According to KFC, each customer who places an order receives a message on their mobile detailing the contents of their order. They also noted that their packaging includes distinct red and green markers, which are supposed to indicate whether any item contains animal products, such as meat or eggs, helping to prevent such mix-ups.

Despite these defenses, the evidence reviewed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission led to a different conclusion. Based on the receipts and the photographs of the delivered items, the commission determined that there was a clear discrepancy between what was ordered and what was delivered. The receipt explicitly listed a vegetarian krisper burger, but the item delivered was a non-vegetarian krisper burger containing chicken. This discrepancy was visible in the photographic evidence provided. The commission's ruling stated, "It (the order) clearly indicates that the KFC outlet, instead of delivering a veg krisper burger as mentioned in the receipts, delivered a non-veg krisper burger stuffed with chicken which is fairly apparent from the pictures of the burger and same amounts to clear cut deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the KFC manager, especially when the manager has miserably failed to rebut the evidence led by complainant by way of any cogent documentary evidence.”

In their concluding remarks, the Commission did not mince words about the negligence displayed by the KFC manager involved in the incident. It was unequivocally established that the manager had failed to provide the proper service, as evidenced by the wrongful delivery of a non-vegetarian burger to a strictly vegetarian customer. “The Commission further observed that one thing is clear that the KFC manager was negligent while rendering service to the complainant. It wrongly delivered a non-veg food item to the wife of the complainant who is a pure vegetarian, thereby hurting her sentiments which caused a lot of mental agony and stress to her,” the Commission noted in its judgment.

As a direct consequence of this negligence, the Commission imposed a fine on the KFC manager. The manager was ordered to pay Rs 7,000 to the complainants as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to them. Additionally, the manager was directed to cover the costs of litigation, amounting to Rs 5,000.

The case at KFC is not isolated in its nature. Recently, there have been similar incidents involving other food service providers that have resulted in legal actions. For example, a few weeks prior to this case, the Ludhiana district consumer disputes redressal forum had to intervene in a similar mix-up by the food delivery service Swiggy and an eatery called Behrouz Biryani. In this incident, a non-vegetarian dish was mistakenly delivered to a vegetarian customer named Vasu Gupta. The forum directed both Swiggy and Behrouz Biryani to compensate Gupta with Rs 50,000 for the error.

Adding to the series of these unsettling events, another incident occurred just yesterday involving the Indian Railways. A vegetarian passenger was served a non-vegetarian meal despite having ordered a vegetarian special thali. This error was particularly egregious as the meal came with a sticker indicating it was a vegetarian thali. The vendor responsible, Sagar Barbeque, owned by Faiz, faced severe repercussions, being 'deactivated' from the list of approved food vendors on the railways.

Numerous incidents of mental agony and hurting sentiments of vegetarian customers widely reported in media

The issue of misdelivering non-vegetarian food to vegetarians has not been confined to a few isolated cases but appears to be a recurring problem across various parts of the country. The distress and discontent among vegetarian consumers are only growing, as evidenced by a slew of incidents that have recently come to light.

Earlier this week, on 4th August 2024, a particularly disconcerting event unfolded when pilgrims returning to Delhi from Haridwar, after collecting Gangajal, were served non-vegetarian biryani. The pilgrims, who were traveling via Kandhla, were understandably upset by this mix-up. The hawker responsible for the mistake, identified as Tanveer, was swiftly apprehended by the authorities due to the gravity of the offense and was taken to the police station for further questioning.

In another shocking incident in April of the same year, Gujarat Police conducted a raid on a local eatery in Vadodara. The establishment, known as ‘Huseni Samosa Center,’ became the center of a scandal when it was discovered that the samosas being sold were stuffed with beef. This led to the arrest of six individuals, including the eatery owners Yusuf and Naeem Sheikh. The issue has sparked outrage in the community, given the religious and cultural sensitivity regarding beef in India.

A similarly alarming case emerged from Pune, Maharashtra, where an inspection at a canteen operated by Tata Motors revealed samosas filled with highly inappropriate materials including condoms, stones, and tobacco. This incident resulted in the registration of an FIR against five individuals: Rahim Shaikh, Azhar Shaikh, Mazar Shaikh, Azar Shaikh, and Vicky Shaikh. Investigations revealed that their actions were motivated by vengeance against the company after their contract had been canceled.

In January of that year, a particularly upsetting incident occurred aboard an Air India flight. A passenger belonging to the Jain community, which strictly follows vegetarianism, was shocked to find chicken pieces in her supposedly vegetarian meal. The passenger, identified as Veera Jain, expressed her outrage to the cabin crew, but her immediate concerns were dismissed, and no action was taken during the flight. Feeling unheard and distressed, Jain took to social media to share her experience. Air India, upon noticing her post on the platform X, responded by requesting her to delete the tweet, a move that could be seen as an attempt to manage the situation discreetly rather than addressing the root cause.

Earlier, in July 2022, a similar issue arose at Jamia Millia Islamia University in Delhi. A vegetarian student claimed to have been served a non-vegetarian sandwich at the university’s central canteen. When the student brought this to the attention of the canteen staff, rather than receiving an apology or a corrective action, he was dismissed and informed bluntly that the canteen did not offer purely vegetarian food. This incident not only caused emotional distress to the student but also raised concerns about the sensitivity and accommodation of dietary requirements in institutional settings.

In response to the growing discontent among vegetarian users, the food delivery aggregator Zomato contemplated launching a specialized service in March 2024. This service, titled ‘Pure Veg Mode,’ aimed to cater specifically to vegetarian customers to ensure they received meals that adhered strictly to their dietary preferences. However, the initiative was ultimately abandoned. This decision left a significant portion of Zomato's customer base, particularly those who follow strict vegetarian diets, without a reliable solution to prevent such mix-ups, thereby continuing the cycle of complaints and criticisms from those who had unexpectedly received non-vegetarian items in their orders.