Latest news with #DBBinu
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- 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 !
Mint
23-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
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.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Restaurant has no legal obligation to serve gravy with parotta and beef fry, says Kerala Consumer Court
In an unusual consumer dispute, a complaint against a Kerala restaurant for failing to serve complimentary gravy with a beef fry and porotta order has been dismissed by the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), according to a report by Bar and Bench. The Commission held that there was no legal or contractual obligation requiring the restaurant to provide free gravy, and therefore, no deficiency in service had occurred. (Also read: New York woman says she found dead rat in salad after eating 'two-thirds' of meal; restaurant denies claim) Presiding over the case, District Forum President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN unanimously ruled that the restaurant's decision did not breach any provisions of 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 at 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 Commission observed. The complainant, journalist Shibu S Vayalakath, had visited The Persian Table, a restaurant located in Kolenchery, in November last year. After ordering beef fry and porotta, he requested gravy to accompany the meal, a request the restaurant denied, citing its internal policy of not providing complimentary gravy. Displeased by the refusal, Shibu initially approached the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer. A joint investigation by supply and food safety officers confirmed that the restaurant did not include gravy in its standard offerings. Subsequently, Shibu filed a consumer complaint demanding ₹1 lakh for emotional distress and mental agony, ₹10,000 in legal expenses, and punitive action against the establishment. He argued that the denial of gravy amounted to a restrictive trade practice and a deficiency in service. However, the forum disagreed, pointing out that the case did not concern the quality, quantity, or safety of food—criteria essential to establish a deficiency under the law. (Also read: 'No real estate or political talks': Bengaluru restaurant board catches internet's eye) As per the report by Bar and Bench, the Commission, relying on Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, held that since there was no mention of gravy in the menu or bill, the restaurant had neither misrepresented nor deceived the customer in any way. '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,' it ruled. With that, the forum dismissed the complaint, affirming that the absence of free gravy did not violate any consumer rights.
