Woman finds ‘live worm’ in food; consumer panel asks restaurant to dish out Rs 25,852

Kaur said when she sent a legal notice to the restaurant, there was no response by the restaurant.
Chili’s restaurant in reply submitted that there was no live worm in the food as claimed as the food was properly cooked and served. Also, it was contended that the complainant wanted a discount on the food bill saying that she knew the owner of the restaurant.

As the owner of the restaurant was not present on the premises, the manager told the complainant that as per the policy, discount would only be available on the drinks menu and not on the food. The restaurant contended that after a request was made by the staff to the complainant not to disturb the atmosphere on the premises, Kaur concocted the “alleged live worm” story and made a complaint out of it which is nothing but an attempt to browbeat the restaurant.

After hearing the matter, the commission said that it is abundantly clear from the video that she called the police and registered Daily Diary Report (DDR) when the restaurant did not pay heed to the request of the complainant. The contents of DDR reveal that the issue of worm in food was reported to the police against the restaurant. It is specifically mentioned by the complainant that the restaurant did not empathise with her and even the bill copy was not given to her. Due to this reason the complainant sought help from police.

“In our opinion, it is the duty of the restaurant to provide hygienic and safe food to the customers. Any deviation from this standard can be considered a breach of their duty. In the present case, presence of live worm in the complainant’s food clearly indicates that it is a failure on the part of restaurant to meet its duties.

Certainly, due to inactive attitude of the OP (Chili’s restaurant) only the complainant was forced to move the police and thereafter to knock at the door of this commission for redressal of her genuine grievance. Hence, the act of OP for not keeping the proper hygiene, not serving safe food to its customers and not-providing proper services proves deficiency in services on its part and its indulgence in unfair trade practice,” said the commission.

The commission ordered the Chili’s restaurant to refund the amount of Rs 852.75 (food bill) to the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs 10,000 to the complainant as compensation, besides paying Rs 5,000 as the cost of litigation. The commission also directed the restaurant to pay another cost of Rs 10,000 to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid account.