• HOME»
  • »
  • Bengaluru Man Sues McDonald’s For Rs. 2 Crore, Here’s Why…

Bengaluru Man Sues McDonald’s For Rs. 2 Crore, Here’s Why…

A 33-year-old man from Bengaluru, identified as Jimit Jain (name changed), has taken a billing error at McDonald’s to court, seeking a Rs. 2 crore compensation for “mental distress” after being mistakenly charged for a chicken burger instead of the vegetarian French fries he ordered. The incident occurred at the McDonald’s outlet in Lido Mall, […]

Advertisement
Bengaluru Man Sues McDonald’s For Rs. 2 Crore, Here’s Why…

A 33-year-old man from Bengaluru, identified as Jimit Jain (name changed), has taken a billing error at McDonald’s to court, seeking a Rs. 2 crore compensation for “mental distress” after being mistakenly charged for a chicken burger instead of the vegetarian French fries he ordered.

The incident occurred at the McDonald’s outlet in Lido Mall, Ulsoor, where Jain and his nephew placed an order for vegetarian French fries. However, the restaurant’s billing system mistakenly charged him for a non-vegetarian McFried Chicken Burger (MFC), which was priced higher. Upon noticing the error, Jain raised the issue with the staff, who apologized and offered Rs. 100 as compensation for the inconvenience.

Despite the quick apology and compensation, Jain demanded a formal apology from McDonald’s, which was not provided. The situation escalated, and Jain filed a non-cognisable report (NCR) with the police and sent an email to McDonald’s. After receiving a response, Jain pursued legal action, taking the matter to consumer court and seeking Rs. 2 crore for the alleged “mental distress and public humiliation.”

In its defense, McDonald’s argued that the complaint was baseless, emphasizing that the billing mistake was an honest oversight and that the issue had been resolved promptly with an apology and the Rs. 100 offer, which Jain refused.

The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed Jain’s case, ruling that the minor billing error was swiftly corrected and did not affect Jain’s dietary preferences. The court concluded that such an error did not warrant a multi-crore compensation claim.

Advertisement