Bengaluru Woman Gets Prawn Sandwich Instead of Vegan Order, Wins Rs 1 Lakh Compensation

A Bengaluru woman received a prawn-filled sandwich instead of her vegan order via Swiggy. The consumer forum held Swiggy and Paris Panini negligent, awarding her Rs 1 lakh compensation for emotional distress and dietary violation.

In an unusual and distressing incident in Bengaluru, a 37-year-old vegan woman received a prawn-filled sandwich instead of the vegan meal she had ordered online. The shocking mix-up caused her significant emotional distress and even triggered a panic episode, prompting her to perform spiritual cleansing rituals at home. The incident has now led to a landmark ruling by the consumer forum, which found both the food delivery platform Swiggy and the Paris Panini outlet negligent, ordering them to pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation, along with interest, for the severe emotional and psychological impact caused by the error.

The Incident: Vegan Order Goes Horribly Wrong

Nisha G, a staunch vegan and lifelong vegetarian, had placed an order for a vegan sandwich from Paris Panini via Swiggy on 10 July 2024. Upon delivery, she took a bite and immediately noticed the unusual taste. To her horror, she discovered pieces of prawn in the sandwich, completely violating her dietary restrictions. Deeply distressed, she reported feeling “humiliated and spiritually violated,” as her beliefs in ahimsa (non-violence) and strict veganism were compromised.

Failed Resolution: Swiggy and Restaurant Ignore Complaint

Nisha approached Swiggy immediately after discovering the mistake. The platform informed her that the issue would be forwarded to the restaurant. The next day, she visited the Paris Panini outlet, where the manager admitted that the error had occurred due to heavy rush. Despite the acknowledgement, the restaurant’s offer of a replacement did not satisfy her, given the personal and spiritual nature of the violation.

On 20 July 2024, Nisha sent legal notices to both Swiggy and Paris Panini, but neither responded adequately. Consequently, she filed a consumer complaint on 22 August 2024, alleging deficiency in service and breach of consumer trust, seeking Rs 2 lakh in compensation.

Consumer Forum Holds Both Parties Liable

After examining the case, the Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled on 16 October 2025 that both the restaurant and the delivery platform were negligent. They were jointly ordered to pay a total of Rs 1 lakh to the complainant, broken down as Rs 50,000 for compensation, Rs 50,000 for mental agony, and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs. The cost of the sandwich, Rs 146, is to be refunded with 12% annual interest from the date of the order until payment is made.

The commission stated, “Delivering non-vegetarian food to a vegan cannot be treated as a simple mistake. It amounts to a grave deficiency in service. Sending non-vegetarian food to a person with dietary or religious restrictions has emotional, religious, and psychological consequences.”

Swiggy’s Liability as Intermediary

While Swiggy argued that it merely facilitated the transaction between customer and restaurant, the panel held that the platform cannot evade responsibility. Since payment was processed through its app, the company has a duty to ensure service standards are upheld. Swiggy’s failure to respond to legal notices and lack of proactive action made it jointly liable for the distress caused.

Paris Panini’s Defence Rejected

The Paris Panini outlet admitted the mistake, citing peak-hour pressure, but argued that “a normal vegan would not have chosen our restaurant, as we serve both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food” and considered Nisha’s compensation claim “excessive.” The commission rejected this defence, emphasising that dietary restrictions based on religion, health, or ethical beliefs must be respected, and any negligence has serious consequences.

Public Reaction and Implications

This incident highlights the importance of strict adherence to dietary and religious requirements in the food delivery ecosystem. It also serves as a warning to both restaurants and online platforms that negligence can result in significant financial and reputational consequences. Nisha’s case sets a precedent for consumer rights protection and underscores the growing accountability of delivery intermediaries in India.