Customer Asked To Wait Outside Restaurant During Covid-19 Does Not Amount To Mistreatment, Burden Of Proof On Customer: Amritsar District Commission

Brief Facts:

The Complainant visited the premises of the M/s LA Roma Pizzeria (“Restaurant”) to purchase food. Upon placing a takeaway order at around 1:30 p.m., the Complainant was informed of a 30–35-minute wait time. While waiting, the Complainant requested normal water but was informed that only packaged mineral water was available. Despite querying the source of water for cooking and washing, the staff did not provide a satisfactory answer. An altercation arose when a staff member asked the Complainant to leave. The staff forced and misbehaved with the Complainant to leave the premises and wait outside for order till ready and packed. No seasoning was there in the package and adequate care was not taken towards choices due to which ordered food was almost wasted. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the restaurant.

In response, the restaurant contended that the Complainant is not a consumer and thus lacked jurisdiction to file the complaint. It argued that the complaint is an abuse of legal process and an attempt to harass them. It asserted that it provides clean facilities, including air conditioning, and adheres to COVID-19 guidelines. It claimed that it offers mineral water through a reverse osmosis (RO) system at no extra cost, with customers having the choice to purchase bottled water.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission referred to the photographs submitted by the restaurant showing the installation of the RO system and held that the Complainant's claim of the absence of normal drinking water was unfounded. Additionally, the District Commission highlighted that if the restaurant solely offered packed drinking water, the Complainant could have substantiated their claim with an affidavit from another customer. It held that the burden of proof was on the Complainant.

Regarding the Complainant's assertion of mistreatment by the staff, the District Commission held that the staff's request for the Complainant to wait outside until their order was in line with the guidelines issued during due to the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure customer safety.

Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the Complainant against the restaurant.