Restaurant has no legal obligation to serve gravy with parotta and beef fry, says Kerala Consumer Court | Trending

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)

No contractual obligation, no consumer right breach

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.

Complaint stemmed from restaurant’s gravy policy

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.

Claim for ₹1 lakh in damages rejected

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)

Policy does not equal promise

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.