A restaurant in Hyderabad, along with the food delivery service Swiggy, has been instructed to compensate a customer who received non-vegetarian food despite being a vegetarian.
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has ordered both the food delivery aggregator and the restaurant to compensate the complainant with Rs. 10,000.
Consumer Commission Takes Action After Chicken Found in Vegetarian Roll Delivered by Swiggy

According to a report in The Hindu, Shruti Baheti, who lives in Madhapur, Hyderabad, mentioned that she had ordered a vegetarian special roll from the restaurant via Swiggy.
She claimed that not only was the order delayed by 54 minutes, but the roll also contained chicken pieces, which she noticed only after starting to eat it. In response to the incident, she not only sent a legal notice but also filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission.

On September 22, 2020, she ordered a special vegetarian roll and paid ₹237 for it. However, the order did not arrive until 54 minutes later. When questioned about the delay, the delivery person cited a high volume of orders. It was only when Baheti began consuming her meal that she discovered pieces of chicken and sausage mixed in.
Representational image of chicken kathi rolls The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has ruled that Swiggy, a prominent restaurant and food delivery service in Hyderabad, must compensate Baheti for the incident. Despite denials from Rolls King and Bundl Technologies (Swiggy), who claimed they had no control over the food once it was dispatched, the commission found them liable. Baheti rejected a refund offered by Rolls King.
Rolls King asserted that their Vegetarian Special Roll was indeed vegetarian-friendly, containing soya chap, paneer burji, mushroom, and soya shammi kebab. However, Baheti provided photographic evidence showing chicken pieces in the meal, contradicting Rolls King’s claim.
Despite Rolls King’s argument that the pictures depicted soy instead of chicken, the commission noted the lack of video evidence to support this assertion. Ultimately, the commission concluded that the delayed delivery and provision of non-vegetarian food constituted poor service.
As a result, the commission ordered a compensation payment of ₹10,000 for the delayed delivery and the serving of non-vegetarian food to a vegetarian. Additionally, Shruti Baheti will receive an extra ₹5,000 to cover expenses incurred as a result of the incident.