Free serving of gravy with parotta is no longer guaranteed
If you are someone who is used to free servings of gravy with the crisply served 'parotta' and beef fry, do not be surprised if the gravy goes missing next time when you order parotta.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has decreed that not providing gravy along with parotta and beef cannot be considered as a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The order was issued on a petition filed by Shibu S. Vayalakath of Choondi against Persian Table Restaurant at Kolencherry.
According to the complainant, the restaurant did not serve gravy when he ordered parotta and beef fry while dining out with a friend last year. The restaurant manager and the owner reportedly told him that it was against their policy to serve gravy. The complainant filed a complaint with the Kunnathunadu taluk supply officer who, based on an inspection, confirmed that the establishment did not provide gravy with dry food items.
The complainant then approached the Commission with a petition seeking compensation of ₹1 lakh for mental agony, ₹10,000 towards legal costs, and legal action against the restaurant under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission observed that the complainant had not raised any grievance regarding the quality, quantity, or safety of the food items that were ordered, consumed, and paid for, but only about the non-availability of gravy, which was neither promised nor charged for.
'Under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 'deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of services which is required to be maintained under law or contract. In the instant case, there was no contractual obligation, express or implied, on the part of the opposite party to provide gravy,' the Commission said.
Therefore, not providing gravy with parotta and beef cannot be considered a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and hence no enforceable consumer relationship arises in this respect.
'It is a settled position of law that unless there is a direct nexus between the service availed and the consideration paid by the complainant, a complaint would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as the existence of a transactional relationship is a pre-requisite to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission,' the order said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Meta and TikTok challenge tech fees in second highest EU court
Meta Platforms and TikTok said a European Union supervisory fee levied on them was disproportionate and based on a flawed methodology as they took their fight with tech regulators to Europe's second highest court on Wednesday. Under the Digital Services Act that became law in 2022, the two companies and 16 others are subject to a supervisory fee amounting to 0.05% of their annual worldwide net income aimed at covering the European Commission's cost of monitoring their compliance with the law. The size of the annual fee is based on the number of average monthly active users for each company and whether the company posts a profit or loss in the preceding financial year. Meta told judges at the General Court it was not trying to avoid paying its fair share of the fee, but it questioned how the Commission had calculated the levy, saying it had been based on the revenue of the group rather than of the subsidiary. Meta's lawyer Assimakis Komninos told the panel of five judges the company still did not know how the fee was calculated. He said the provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, 'go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results'. ByteDance-owned Chinese online social media platform TikTok was equally critical. 'What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods,' TikTok lawyer Bill Batchelor told the court. 'It inflates TikTok's fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap,' he said. He accused the Commission of double counting the companies' users, saying this was discriminatory because users switching between their mobile phones and laptops would then be counted twice. He also said regulators had exceeded their legal power by setting the fee cap at the level of group profits. Commission lawyer Lorna Armati rejected both companies' arguments and defended the Commission's use of group profit as a reference value to calculate the supervisory fee. 'When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee,' she told the court. 'The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment,' she said. The Court is expected to issue its ruling next year. The cases are T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Meta and TikTok challenge tech fees in second highest EU court
Meta Platforms and TikTok said a European Union supervisory fee levied on them was disproportionate and based on a flawed methodology as they took their fight with tech regulators to Europe's second highest court on Wednesday. Under the Digital Services Act that became law in 2022, the two companies and 16 others are subject to a supervisory fee amounting to 0.05% of their annual worldwide net income aimed at covering the European Commission's cost of monitoring their compliance with the law. The size of the annual fee is based on the number of average monthly active users for each company and whether the company posts a profit or loss in the preceding financial year. Meta told judges at the General Court it was not trying to avoid paying its fair share of the fee, but it questioned how the Commission had calculated the levy, saying it had been based on the revenue of the group rather than of the subsidiary. Meta's lawyer Assimakis Komninos told the panel of five judges the company still did not know how the fee was calculated. He said the provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, "go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results". ByteDance-owned Chinese online social media platform TikTok was equally critical. "What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods," TikTok lawyer Bill Batchelor told the court. "It inflates TikTok's fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap," he said. He accused the Commission of double counting the companies' users, saying this was discriminatory because users switching between their mobile phones and laptops would then be counted twice. He also said regulators had exceeded their legal power by setting the fee cap at the level of group profits. Commission lawyer Lorna Armati rejected both companies' arguments and defended the Commission's use of group profit as a reference value to calculate the supervisory fee. "When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee," she told the court. "The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment," she said. The Court is expected to issue its ruling next year. The cases are T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Why was Malta's ‘golden passports' scheme scrapped?
The story so far: In late April, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) struck down Malta's 'golden passports' scheme — a 2020 scheme which authorises the naturalisation of foreigners in the country, and consequently the European Union, in return for hefty financial investments in the country. Brussels had launched infringement proceedings against Malta, as it persisted with its own scheme, blocking access only to Russians and Belarusians consequent to Russia's war against Ukraine. What are CBIs and RBIs? Citizenship by investment (CBI), known as golden passports, and residency by investment (RBI), or golden visas, enable third country nationals to live and work in host countries in exchange for financial investments. The European Parliament and the Commission have called for both forms of mobility to be abolished in view of the inherent risks to security, such as money laundering, organised crime, tax evasion and corruption. Between 2013 and 2019, about 1,32,000 persons had obtained entry into the EU through CBI and RBI schemes, generating financial inflows of over €20 billion, as per a 2022 European Parliament Research Service report. The risks from CBI and RBI have been highlighted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Financial Action Task Force. Principal among the beneficiaries of such migration are nationals from China, Russia and West Asia. Why is the EU against the scheme? Within the 27-member bloc, the acquisition or loss of nationality falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of each country. That said, the historic 1992 Maastricht Treaty inaugurated common EU citizenship. That is to say, nationals of an EU state are simultaneously common EU citizens. Therefore, the matter of the grant or rejection of nationality must accord with EU law. The European Commission contended that the attractiveness of Malta's CBI scheme did not lie in the acquisition of Maltese nationality per se, but instead in the rights that accrue from the complementary EU citizenship. The implicit assumption here being the unique appeal of the absence of internal frontiers, the right to free movement and work across the bloc, the right to vote and to be elected in local as well as European parliament elections. The Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made a pointed reference to golden passports in the 2020 State of the Union address, declaring that 'European values are not for sale.' Brussels further argued that the grant of nationality in return for investments — a commodification of citizenship — was incompatible with the principles of membership of the bloc. These are sincere cooperation, fairness and non-discrimination — codified in Article 4(3) of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and under Article 20 of the 2009 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. What did the ECJ verdict state? Upholding the Commission's claims, the court reasoned that the pillars of European citizenship are dependent on mutual trust among member states and mutual respect for national decisions. The bond of nationality of a given state is underpinned by a 'relationship of solidarity, good faith and the reciprocity of rights and duties between the state and citizens,' the court added. These principles are infringed upon once citizenship is sought to be granted as a commercial transaction in exchange for an investment. The 2020 Maltese scheme is tantamount to the commercialisation of the grant of nationality of a particular state, and by extension, of the entire bloc. This is incompatible with EU treaties. What next? In theory, Malta could exercise its authority to confer nationality to those who availed the CBI scheme, minus union citizenship. This would risk diminishing its appeal as a destination state. The writer is Director, Strategic Initiatives, AgnoShin Technologies.
