A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Ernakulam has dismissed a complaint filed against a Kerala restaurant that allegedly failed to serve complimentary gravy with beef fry and porotta. The consumer court ruled in favor of the restaurant, stating that it was not legally or contractually required to provide gravy with the dish.
The Complaint and the Incident
The case began when Shibu S. Vayalakath, a journalist, visited The Persian Table, a restaurant located in Kolenchery, Kerala, in November of the previous year. After ordering porotta and beef fry, Vayalakath requested complimentary gravy to accompany the meal. The restaurant, however, refused, citing its internal policy of not serving gravy with the dish.
Feeling dissatisfied by the response, Vayalakath filed a complaint with the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer. A subsequent joint inquiry conducted by the Taluk Supply Officer and the Food Safety Officer concluded that gravy was not included on the restaurant’s menu.
Vayalakath’s Legal Action
Undeterred, Vayalakath filed a petition with the consumer forum, seeking ₹1 lakh in compensation for emotional distress and an additional ₹10,000 to cover his legal expenses. The complainant argued that by failing to include gravy, the restaurant had served an incomplete meal, violating the standards of food safety and service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Court’s Ruling
In response to the complaint, the consumer court ruled in favor of the restaurant. The forum, led by President D.B. Binu, along with members Ramachandran V. and Sreevidhia T.N., concluded that the restaurant was not obligated to provide gravy, as it was not promised or charged for in the menu or the bill.
The court stated that deficiency in service arises only when there is a legal requirement regarding the quality, quantity, or safety of a service. Since the restaurant’s menu and bill did not indicate that gravy would be included with the order, and no legal or contractual obligation existed to provide it, the court found no grounds for the complaint.
The forum emphasized that internal policies of a restaurant, such as the decision not to serve gravy, cannot be construed as a deficiency in service unless there is a legal or contractual obligation to provide the item.
Court’s Statement
The court further clarified, “In the instant case, there is no evidence of any misrepresentation, false promise, or deceptive trade practice committed by the Opposite Party. Neither the menu nor the bill suggests that gravy was included with, or promised alongside, the ordered dishes. A restaurant’s internal policy regarding accompaniments cannot, in the absence of a legal or contractual obligation, be construed as a deficiency in service.”
The consumer forum dismissed the complaint, ruling that the restaurant did not violate any consumer rights by refusing to provide gravy with the porotta and beef fry. This decision reaffirms that consumer service complaints must be based on legal or contractual obligations rather than expectations about food accompaniments that are not clearly outlined in the menu or bill.
