Restaurant Can't Force Customers To Pay Service Charge: Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Caper Rooftop Bistro Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President)and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Caper Rooftop Bistro, holding that the restaurant was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for automatically levying and collecting a service charge without obtaining the consumer's consent. The Commission directed the restaurant to refund the illegally collected service charge of ₹129 and pay ₹5,000 as compensation and litigation costs to the complainant. Brief Facts The complainant, Rahul Goyal, visited Caper Rooftop Bistro, Bathinda, on 05-10-2025 and availed food and beverage services. Upon completion of the meal, the restaurant issued two bills amounting to ₹2,291 and ₹1,191 respectively. The complainant alleged that the restaurant had automatically added a service charge of ₹79.10 in one bill and ₹49.90 in the other bill, totaling ₹129, without obtaining his consent or informing him beforehand. The complainant contended that the levy of service charge was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on 04-07-2022, which clarify that payment of service charge is voluntary and cannot be imposed automatically. He alleged that despite objecting to the charge, the restaurant failed to remove it and unlawfully collected the amount. Aggrieved by the restaurant's conduct, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He sought refund of the illegally collected service charge of ₹129 along with compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses. The opposite party failed to appear before the Commission and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 11-03-2026. Observations and Decision The Commission observed that the bills issued by the opposite party clearly showed that a sum of ₹79.10 and ₹49.90 had been charged as "service charge", totaling ₹129. It noted that the opposite party failed to appear before the Commission and contest the complaint despite service of notice. Consequently, the allegations and evidence adduced by the complainant remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. The Commission further observed that there was nothing on record to establish that the complainant had voluntarily agreed to pay the service charge or had consented to its inclusion in the bills. Rather, the evidence showed that the service charge had been automatically added. The Commission held that a consumer cannot be compelled to pay any amount over and above the price of goods and services availed unless such charge is legally permissible and duly disclosed. Holding that the opposite party had automatically levied and collected service charge without the complainant's consent, the Commission concluded that such conduct amounted to deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice. Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed, and the opposite party was directed to refund ₹129 collected towards service charge and pay a lump-sum compensation of ₹5,000 towards harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days of receipt of the order. Case Title: Rahul Goyal v. Caper Rooftop Bistro Case No.: DC/44/CC/215/2026 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Restaurant Can't Force Customers To Pay Service Charge: Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Caper Rooftop Bistro Liable

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Praveen Mishra

Restaurant Can't Force Customers To Pay Service Charge: Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Caper Rooftop Bistro Liable

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers