Kerala Consumer Court says restaurant not obligated to give free gravy with porotta and beef fry

A district consumer disputes redressal forum (DCDRC) at Ernakulam recently dismissed a complaint filed by a consumer who alleged that a restaurant failed to serve free gravy along with beef fry and porotta [Shibu S Vayalakath v Manager, The Persian Table Restaurant & ors]..District forum President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN observed that there was no legal or contractual obligation on the restaurant to provide gravy and thus 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 said..Shibu S Vayalakath, a journalist, had visited The Persian Table, a restaurant at Kolenchery in November last year along with a friend and ordered beef fry and porotta and asked for gravy to be served with the meal.The restaurant declined, citing its policy of not providing complimentary gravy.Unhappy with the response, Shibu filed a complaint with the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer.Following a joint inquiry by the Taluk Supply Officer and the Food Safety Officer, it was reported that the establishment did not include gravy as part of its offerings.The complainant then approached the consumer forum seeking ₹1 lakh for emotional distress and mental agony, ₹10,000 for legal costs and action against the restaurant..Shibu argued that denying gravy amounted to restrictive trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. He further stated that the restaurant violated food safety standards by serving an incomplete dish..However, the consumer court noted that the complaint was not related to the quality, quantity or safety of the food but solely to the non-availability of gravy.Importantly, it found that the restaurant had neither made a promise to serve gravy nor charged the complainant for it.Relying on Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer forum clarified that under the said provision, a 'deficiency' in service arises only when there is a shortcoming in quality, quantity or safety of a service which is required to be maintained by law.Since the complainant failed to establish any legal or contractual duty on the part of the restaurant to provide gravy, the consumer forum concluded that there was no deficiency."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," the consumer forum further clarified.Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed with the consumer forum making it clear that the failure to serve free gravy with beef fry and porotta did not amount to a violation of consumer rights..The complainant Shibu S appeared in person..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.