M.AHAMMED SIDHIQUE S/o. Mohammed Rafeeq v. SS HYDERABAD BIRYANI PVT LTD Through its Proprietor

3

verification by the complainant, a dead centipede was found inside the Mutton Biryani, clearly visible to the naked eye.

4. The complainant submitted that the discovery of the dead centipede caused shock, panic, disgust, fear, and severe mental distress among the family members, particularly because infants and elderly persons had already consumed the food. The contaminated food was immediately discarded to prevent possible health complications. The complainant immediately contacted the 1st Opposite Party and informed them about the contamination. On their request, photographic proof of the centipede inside the biryani was shared. Thereafter, the manager of the 1st Opposite Party assured replacement of the food and requested the complainant's address and live location. However, despite waiting for a considerable time, neither did the manager visit the place nor was any replacement or remedial action provided.

5. The complainant further submitted that the staff of the 1st Opposite Party irresponsibly denied liability by falsely claiming that the centipede was "green and not cooked," which explanation is false, evasive, and unacceptable. The phone call was subsequently disconnected, demonstrating total negligence and disregard towards consumer welfare and statutory food safety obligations. Having no other alternative, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Food Safety Department, Ayanavaram. Pursuant to the complaint, inspection was conducted on 31.12.2025 and several hygienic and statutory violations were allegedly found in the premises of the 1st Opposite Party, including insect contamination, improper pest control measures, absence of statutory certificates, issuance of Improvement Notice under Section 55, and collection of Mutton Biryani sample for further legal action.

6. The complainant submitted that due to the contaminated food supplied by the Opposite Parties, the entire post-marriage family function was disrupted,

4

causing embarrassment, inconvenience, emotional distress, and fear among the family members. It is further submitted that the complainant suffered direct monetary loss of Rs.3,500/- besides severe mental agony and loss of peace of mind. Though a legal notice dated 20.01.2026 was issued to the Opposite Parties, the allegations were denied through a reply notice dated 05.02.2026.

7. The complainant submitted that the acts and omissions of the Opposite Parties amount to gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and supply of unsafe and unhygienic food in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Food Safety and Standards Act. Hence, the complaint.

In support of the Complaint, Exhibits A-1 to A9 has been marked on the side of the Complainants.

III. The Opposite parties 1 to 3 set exparte:-

Notice sent to the opposite parties by this Commission, which was duly served. The opposite parties 1 to 3 had failed to appear before this Commission, hence he was called absent and set exparte on 21.04.2026.

IV. To establish this case the Complainant had filed proof affidavit along with 9 documents and same were marked as Exhibits A1 to A9. Brief written arguments filed by the complainant.

V. ISSUES RAISED:

8. Based on the above facts, perusing the records before us, and hearing the submissions made by both sides, the following issues have become relevant:

Issue No. 1: Whether there is deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties?

Issue No. 2: Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief and if so to what extent?

5

Let's inspect each of the above in detail.

I. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:

Issue No. 1: Whether there is deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties?

9. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and supply of contaminated and unsafe food by the Opposite Parties.

10. According to the complainant, he purchased one Bucket Mutton Biryani (MB Standard Pack) from the 1st Opposite Party on 30.12.2025 for a sum of Rs.3,500/- for serving the same during a post-marriage "Maruveedu" family function attended by family members including minor children and elderly persons. It is the specific case of the complainant that while the food was being consumed by family members along with children, a dead centipede was found inside the Mutton Biryani served to a child, causing shock, panic, embarrassment, and disruption of the family event. Admittedly the opposite party inspite of notice issued by this commission, not appeared and were set Exparte.

11. The complainant has relied upon Ex.A1 food purchase bill dated 30.12.2025 to establish purchase of the Bucket Mutton Biryani from the 1st Opposite Party. Ex.A2 and Ex.A8 screenshots of telephonic and WhatsApp communications clearly disclose that immediately after discovery of the contamination, the complainant informed the Opposite Parties and shared photographs of the contaminated food.

12. The complainant has further produced Ex.A7 photograph showing the dead centipede found in the Biryani served in a plate. Ex.A9 WhatsApp screenshots relating to the complaint made before the Food Safety Officer, Ayanavaram,

6

further corroborate the complainant's version regarding the immediate reporting of the incident before the competent authority.

13. The complainant has also produced Ex.A3 legal notice dated 20.01.2026 issued to the Opposite Parties and Ex.A4 reply notice dated 05.02.2026 issued by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. Though the Opposite Parties denied liability in the reply notice, they have not produced any convincing material to disprove the occurrence or to establish that the food supplied by them was hygienic and fit for human consumption. Mere denial cannot outweigh the documentary evidence produced by the complainant.

14. Further, the complainant has specifically pleaded that pursuant to the complaint lodged before the Food Safety Department, Ayanavaram, inspection was conducted on 31.12.2025 and several statutory and hygienic lapses were noticed in the premises of the 1st Opposite Party, including insect contamination, inadequate pest control measures, and absence of statutory certificates. It is also stated that an Improvement Notice under Section 55 was issued and sample Mutton Biryani was collected for legal action. The Opposite Parties as stated earlier not participated in the proceedings before us and have not produced any evidence to rebut the said inspection findings.

15. Ex.A6 photographs relating to the Maruveedu function establish that the food was purchased for a genuine family function and not for any commercial purpose. The evidence on record probabilises the complainant's case that the contamination caused severe embarrassment and emotional distress during an important post-marriage family gathering. Further the presence of dead centipede in briyani served to a child, during the said event, created a panic and distress among the family members.

7

16. Thus supplying food containing a dead centipede undoubtedly amounts to supply of unsafe and unhygienic food, unfit for human consumption and may lead to serious health hazards in certain cases, eventually leading to deficiency in service. A consumer purchasing food from a reputed restaurant legitimately expects adherence to basic standards of hygiene and safety. The presence of a centipede in the food itself speaks volumes regarding the negligent preparation and handling of the food for human consumption at large. The conduct of the Opposite Parties in failing to promptly address the grievance and in denying liability despite photographic proof further amounts to clear deficiency in food service. Further this commission observed that the opposite parties are in a denial mode rather than resolving the issue immediately and failure to take immediate preventive measures by supplying the same contaminated food to the public at large. This act of opposite party also amounts to unfair trade practice apart from the deficiency in food service. Thus this issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2: Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief and if so to what extent?

17. In issue no.1 we arrived at a conclusion that the opposite parties/ SS Hyderabad Biriyani are held liable for deficiency in food service and for unfair trade practices for the supply of unsafe and unhygienic food unfit for human consumption, not only to the complainant's family but to the public at large. Now the issue to be decided that what relief the complainant is entitled to?

The complainant in the instant complaint has sought the following reliefs:

1.To direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only) being the amount collected towards the contaminated Bucket Mutton Biryani (MB Standard Pack) supplied by the 1st Opposite Party;

8

2.To direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) for the severe mental agony, emotional distress, mbarrassment, inconvenience, disruption of a post-marriage "Maruveedu"

family function, and health risk caused to minor children and elderly persons, suffered by the Complainant due to the negligence deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.

3. To direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards litigation costs ot this complaint. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case this commission is of the considered view that the complainant has satisfactorily established that the Opposite Parties/ SS Hyderabad briyani were negligent in supplying contaminated food to the complainant's family and general public at large including the children, such negligence caused panic, mental agony, emotional distress, physical inconvenience, and financial loss to the complainant and his family members. At the same time, the compensation claimed at Rs.5,00,000/- appears excessive considering the facts and circumstances of the case and absence of proof of actual physical injury or medical treatment, this Commission is inclined to grant the following reliefs:

1. The complaint is allowed against the opposite parties/ SS Hyderabad briyani for deficiency in food service and unfair trade practice.

2. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in food service, unfair trade practices, including the cost of the food product, pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.

3. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.

In the result, the complaint is allowed against the opposite parties/ SS Hyderabad Biryani for deficiency in food service and unfair trade practice.

9

The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in food service, unfair trade practices, including the cost of the food product, pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The Opposite Parties also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs. The above said amount of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees one lakh five thousand only) shall be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the entire amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e.,03-03-2026 to till the date of realization.

Dictated to Steno Typist, transcribed, and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 26^th day of May, 2026.

KAVITHA KANNAN T.R.SIVAKUMHAR D.GOPINATH

MEMBER.I MEMBER.II PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

10

KAVITHA KANNAN T.R.SIVAKUMHAR D.GOPINATH

MEMBER.I MEMBER.II PRESIDENT