Chicken legs are not baked and customer claims thousands of dollars in courts: merchants have refunded money, the platform has lost money, it is not advisable to over -claim

Quanzhou Evening News · Quanzhou Tong Client August 30 (Quanzhou Evening News reporter Huang Dunliang correspondent Yang Wei) Through fast food ordering through the takeaway platform, the grilled chicken legs are slightly bloody. Dai continued to sue the merchant to the court and claimed 1,000 yuan. After hearing, the court believed that it was not appropriate to claim the chicken leg to be harmful to human health when Xiao Dai had been compensated and had no evidence that the chicken leg was harmful to human health, so he decided to reject his lawsuit.

On April 19 this year, Xiao Dai ordered a package to a restaurant in Fengze District through the takeaway platform. The package includes buckwheat noodles, crystal lemon prawns, body -shaped salad sets and vine pepper bone grilled chicken legs. In food, Xiao Dai thought that the chicken legs were not cooked, and there was blood in it. Therefore, he negotiated with the merchant via WeChat and complained to the takeaway platform. In the end, the merchant refunded the chicken leg money at 15.76 yuan to Xiao Dai, and the platform also paid him 100 yuan.

In this regard, Xiao Dai was not satisfied. After the market supervision and management department involved in mediation, he still failed to reach an agreement with the merchants on compensation. In May this year, Xiaodai sued the merchant to the People's Court of Fengze District and asked the other party to compensate 1,000 yuan.

Xiao Dai provided the court with his WeChat chat records and photos with the merchant. The photo shows that the chicken legs he bought have basically been eaten, and the chicken bones are slightly bloody.

After inspection, the court confirmed that the relationship between Xiaodai and the business of catering service and the case of catering service contracts and the case involved in vine pepper bone grilled chicken legs and other meals were purchased from the merchant.

The court believes that the "Food Safety Law" stipulates that the production of food or business that does not meet food safety standards is that foods that do not meet food safety standards. In addition to requiring compensation for losses, consumers can also ask producers or operators to request payment of 10 prices for ten prices. Three times or three times the compensation; if the amount of compensation is less than 1,000 yuan, it is 1,000 yuan; the law also stipulates that food safety refers to the non -toxic and harmless food of food, which meets the nutritional requirements that should be met. Causes any acute, subacute or chronic hazards. The existing evidence provided by Xiao Dai can only prove that the chicken legs they purchased are slightly bloody, but it does not provide evidence to prove that the meal does not meet the food safety standards, and it has received a refund of the merchant before the lawsuit and the takeaway platform must be obtained. Compensation should not be excessively claimed again.

Recently, the court's first instance decided to reject Xiao Dai's claim. After the judgment of the first instance, Xiao Dai did not appeal, and the judgment has taken effect.

Takeaway or ordering has become more and more deeper into citizens' lives. When it comes to disputes, what should I do as consumers? The judge reminded that it is a good thing that citizens have awareness of rights protection. When discovering a quality problem of takeaway meals, consumers should retain the takeaway order confirmation information, payment information, problems of food photos, and chat records with merchants. As a strong evidence when the dispute occurs, and then the situation can be reasonably selected according to the situation, such as negotiating and reconciliation with merchants, complaints reporting to takeaway platforms, and court lawsuits. In this case, Xiao Dai asked the merchant to compensate for 1,000 yuan, which should provide corresponding evidence, and he had received certain compensation before the lawsuit, and he should not excessively claim.

- END -