No Legal Or Contractual Obligation On Restaurant To Provide Gravy With Porotta & Beef Fry: CDRC Ernakulam

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ernakulam recently passed an order dismissing a complaint filed by a journalist against a restaurant (Persian Table) for not providing gravy when he ordered porotta and beef fry.Factual backgroundThe complainant stated that the food was dry and uncomfortable to eat since there was no gravy provided by the restaurant even upon request. The waiter, manager and owner of the restaurant made it clear that it was restaurant policy not to provide gravy with dry food items. Aggrieved, a complaint was filed under S. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking a compensation of INR 1,00,000/- for mental agony and INR 10,000/- towards legal costs. Terming the policy of the restaurant to be an unfair, exploitative, and restrictive trade practice, the complainant alleged that the same constitutes a deficiency of service under S. 2(11) of the Act.For context, S.2(11) states:““deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes—(i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and(ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer;”The complainant also submitted arguments referencing section 2(22) and 21 of the Act, and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 alleging mental agony due to serving of food without its essential components.FindingsThe Commission observed that the complainant did not raise any grievance regarding the quality, quantity of safety standards of the products ordered, consumed and paid for. It also found that there was no enforceable consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties since there was no express or implied contractual obligation to provide gravy. The Commission also held that the pre-requisite of existence of a transactional relationship was not satisfied in this case and therefore, the complaint would not be maintainable. Moreover, since no evidence of any misrepresentation could be made out, the restaurant's internal policy cannot be construed as deficiency in service when no legal or contractual obligation exists. Thus, the complaint was dismissed.Case No: CC No. 549 of 2025Case Title: Shibu S. Vayalakath v. Manager, The Persian Table RestaurantClick to Read/Download Order

No Legal Or Contractual Obligation On Restaurant To Provide Gravy With Porotta & Beef Fry: CDRC Ernakulam

K. Salma Jennath

Tags