Why was Ms. Smith in a hurry?? - Page 2

A cockroach in food is not a joke. Smith should be in hurry. She is not answerable to spice and chutney.

Ek aur baat kaand hogaya aur bhaag gayi na. Had Ms.Smith nor reported the issue and Anupama would have "escaped" to India, Ms.Smith would be held responsible for enabling unlawful exit of an alleged.

Originally posted by: nutmeg7

A cockroach in food is not a joke. Smith should be in hurry. She is not answerable to spice and chutney.

Absolutely!! But deewana majboor crapadia thinks his Anu deserves more than what she actually deserves. Pagal aadmi

Everyone seems to have forgotten that even know it was a foul play, Anupamaa is still responsible for her carelessness. Kapadia ko kuch bhi lage. Woh toh biased hi hoga.

Originally posted by: nutmeg7

A cockroach in food is not a joke. Smith should be in hurry. She is not answerable to spice and chutney.

But it was cooked by Maa.. everybody is answerable to Maa.. and in the end everybody apologises to Maa and becomes her Bhakt.. 🤣

Mrs smith kis khet ki mooli, I mean kis biryani ki cockroach hai 😂

Originally posted by: nutmeg7

Everyone seems to have forgotten that even know it was a foul play, Anupamaa is still responsible for her carelessness. Kapadia ko kuch bhi lage. Woh toh biased hi hoga.

Totally agree!!! He called her on video which is a mistake as it was a bigger day for her at work. He never admitted to this mistake plus Anupama madam the overconfident who cannot multitask, again tried multitasking and failed. She is also not admitting the mistake of picking up a phone call when it is a big day for her Spice and Chutney. These 2 losers only blames "others" surrounding them but never admit their won mistakes. Losers!!! They deserve each other.

https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-01111 From the NYC official website - you make a complaint and it is investigated and handled - no rowdyism, no carrying away of the trophy, no stone pelting.

Innocent until proven guilty - and one roach is not enough to claim infestation which is a larger problem. With the help of an attorney, you may get a nuisance value settlement if a claim is made about a roach being found in your meal or the restaurant can be asked to reimburse the cost of the meal.

So why was Mrs. Smith in a hurry is a valid question and if she is found liable to have acted in haste, she can be taken to task.

Originally posted by: soapwatcher1

https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-01111 From the NYC official website - you make a complaint and it is investigated and handled - no rowdyism, no carrying away of the trophy, no stone pelting.

Innocent until proven guilty - and one roach is not enough to claim infestation which is a larger problem. With the help of an attorney, you may get a nuisance value settlement if a claim is made about a roach being found in your meal or the restaurant can be asked to reimburse the cost of the meal.

So why was Mrs. Smith in a hurry is a valid question and if she is found liable to have acted in haste, she can be taken to task.

Why are you pretending she was an ordinary customer who needs to file a normal complaint? Lol. She was a famous food critic who came as a special appointment

The situation was:

Mrs.Smith was an accomplished food critic who was bestowed with the power to recommend/grant the prestigious American Star. That's a very responsible role. She found a cockroach in the food that was served to her which, by the way got ALL the media attention. Anuj requested her to NOT report the issue and give them time to run a private investigation.

Some questions have been unanswered:

1. What is Anuj's standing in this matter and why should anyone listen to him?

2. The incident occurred on a particular date which, by the way, was already viral in the media, investigation, if any, would be done at a reasonable time from the occurrence of the incident so that evidences are gathered without being tampered. If not reported on time, the reputation and credibility of the Food critic would be questioned for unreasonable bias.

3. For once, just by any trace of chance, Mrs.Smith did agree to wait from reporting the incident, there are 2 serious concerns:

a. how much time is reasonable time? In that case, what is the guarantee that evidence would not vanish or accused would Not escape inquiry which by the way, did happen, Anupama left 2 days after the incident and Anuj, who took the responsibility followed her. Anupama had not even decided (until the truth came out and she was specifically asked) if and when she would return to Amreeka. Which means this was Indeed an escape.

b. Even when the truth came out, it was Yashdeep who informed the other employees, Anupama, the co-owner, who treated ALL employees as family and whose employees were waiting without a job, did not hear from her. Hell they did not even know she was indecisive about her return. Wow.

4. What was Anupama doing to "privately investigate" the matter? What efforts did she put from her end for resolution? Surely, it was mere luck (miracles only happen to Anupama) that she overheard the truth, otherwise what was her modus operandi?

Despite ALL this, who is being questioned? The Food critic to have done her job and the caller who reminded her of her job. The food which was poisoned be damned, eh?