McDonald’s Billing Error Leads To ₹2 Crore Lawsuit – What Happened At Lido Mall?

In a unique legal battle, a 33-year-old Bengaluru resident has taken McDonald’s to court, seeking a staggering ₹2 crore in compensation after a billing error at the restaurant. The case stems from a simple mistake: the customer was charged for a McFried Chicken Burger (MFC) instead of the vegetarian French fries he had ordered at the Lido Mall outlet.

The incident started when the complainant, with his nephew, was a frequent visitor to McDonald’s. After ordering vegetarian French fries, he was shocked to see that the bill included a more expensive chicken burger instead. Upon noticing the discrepancy, he immediately raised the issue with the restaurant staff, who apologized and offered ₹100 as compensation for the inconvenience.

This was, however, not enough for the customer, who was not satisfied with such meager compensation. He sought a formal apology, which he claimed was never given. And that was followed up by a series of escalations, including the police complaint (recorded as non-cognizable) and an email to McDonald’s regarding his grievance. His demand for a formal apology and then compensation was not confined to that, as the issue evolved into a case at the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

In his complaint, the customer accused McDonald’s of deficiency in service and claimed a compensation amount of ₹2 crores. Interestingly, McDonald’s quickly responded to the dilemma suggesting that the mistake was an inadvertent one and has countered the charge by refunding the difference and issuing a formal apology. The fast food giant further described the lawsuit frivolous, reiterating that the complaint was little more than an attempt to obtain undue compensation.

The case has stirred public debate about what constitutes fair compensation for service mistakes, with many questioning if a ₹2 crore claim is disproportionate for a billing error.

As the legal drama continues, it remains to be seen how the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission will rule on this high-profile case.

ALSO READ: ‘No Reason For Maratha CM’ – RSS Rejects BJP’s Caste-Based Debate, Backs Fadnavis