Restaurant not obliged to serve gravy with parotta and beef fry: Kerala Consumer Court
A district consumer disputes redressal forum (DCDRC) in Kerala recently dismissed a complaint filed by a consumer who alleged that a restaurant failed to serve free gravy along with beef fry and porotta.
District forum Ernakulam President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN observed that there was no obligation on the restaurant to provide gravy. Thus, the court said, there was no deficiency in service by the restaurant under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
"In the instant case, there was no contractual obligation-express or implied-on the part of the Opposite Party to provide gravy. Therefore, the non-providing of gravy of the time of supplying porotta and beef cannot be considered as a deficiency in service from the part of opposite party No.1 and 2, and hence no enforceable consumer relationship arises in this respect," the consumer court ruling on 19 May said as reported by legal news website Bar and Bench.
The incident took place in November 2024 when the complainant and a friend dined at The Persian Table restuarant and requested gravy with their order. However, the owner declined, stating that gravy was not served as a complimentary item.
The customer, Shibu S Vayalakath, a journalist, complained to the Kunnathunadu Taluk supply officer. An inquiry was then conducted by both the Supply officer and the Food Safety officer, who confirmed that the restaurant did not have a policy of providing free gravy.
There was no contractual obligation... on the part of the Opposite Party to provide gravy.
The matter was eventually taken to the Consumer Court, which ruled that the complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
Consumer forum slaps fine on water purifier company for failing to conduct repair works
Kochi: The Ernakulam district consumer disputes redressal commission imposed a fine of Rs 30,000 on a water purifier manufacturer that failed to conduct repair works on a machine it delivered. The forum ruled that failure to repair the water purifier used for drinking water, despite an annual maintenance contract (AMC), constituted a deficiency in service. Compensation, along with court costs, must be provided, it added. The order was issued in response to a complaint by Kothamangalam resident Ajeesh K John. The commission observed that the company in question violated consumer rights by not fully adhering to the AMC for the water purifier and by ignoring the consumer's complaints. The bench, consisting of chairman DB Binu and members V Ramachandran and TN Srividya, opined that denying service to the consumer, not responding to complaints, and cancelling the service were unfair trade practices. The firm was ordered to pay the consumer Rs 25,000 for mental and financial difficulties, plus Rs 5,000 for court expenses, within 45 days. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Consumer rights panel slaps fine on company for failure to service water purifier
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has slapped a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing household electrical appliances with a fine of ₹30,000 for the alleged failure to repair a water purifier despite an annual maintenance contract (AMC) being in place. The Commission comprising D.B. Binu, president, and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the ex parte order on a petition filed by one Ajish. K. John of Kothamangalam against the manager of Eureka Forbes Ltd. The complainant said he had an AMC with the opposite party since 2018, which he regularly renewed for uninterrupted service. Despite this, the complainant faced repeated service issues. In April 2024, the purifier began leaking, and although a service request was raised, it was later cancelled unilaterally by the opposite party, he said. Following this, the complainant approached the Commission. However, the opposite party failed to submit any argument notes or participate in the proceedings. The Commission observed that the service lapses constituted a deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further, unilateral cancellation of a service request without informing the complainant amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47), as it misleads or fails to fulfil a promised contractual obligation, the Commission observed. The complainant, being deprived of clean drinking water due to the non-functioning of the purifier, endured mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience, especially given that the purifier was essential due to contaminated well water. 'The Complainant, despite diligently maintaining an Annual Maintenance Contract and repeatedly reaching out for help, was met with silence, delays, and even the unjust cancellation of service. This experience not only disrupted his daily life but also caused significant mental distress. When a consumer is compelled to approach a legal forum for the enforcement of basic service obligations, it reflects a glaring failure in corporate responsibility and empathy, values that should be at the heart of every consumer-facing organisation,' the Commission remarked. Consequently, the opposite party was directed to pay ₹25,000 as fine and another ₹5,000 towards the cost of legal proceedings.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- The Hindu
Ernakulam consumer panel orders retailer to pay compensation for delivering faulty phone
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered an online retailer to pay a total compensation of ₹70,000 to a resident of Kacheripady, Ernakulam, for delivering a defective and old mobile phone and cheating him by terming it as a brand new device. The compensation included ₹55,000 that the consumer had paid for the phone, ₹10,000 towards misrepresentation and causing mental agony to him, and ₹5,000 as the cost of proceedings. The order dated April 30, 2025 issued by the panel led by D.B. Binu, president of the panel, said that the online retailer had allegedly showcased the mobile as a brand-new smartphone with warranty. Instead, they delivered an old, used, and defective handset of the 2021 model without accessories. The authorised service centre had informed the complainant that there was no valid warranty for the device. The online retailer later admitted that they dealt with refurbished units, which was not disclosed at the time of the sale, it said. The panel found that a refund was not made despite the consumer returning the device and issuing repeated reminders. The non-delivery of the promised product and failure to refund the amount despite the return of goods amount to deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite parties consciously refrained from filing their version even after serving the notice. Thus, the allegations stand unchallenged, according to the order.
