The bench, comprising Commission chief DB Binu and members V Ramachandran and TN Srividya, concluded that the case could not be entertained, as the restaurant neither offered nor charged for the gravy.
Published May 23, 2025 | 2:11 PM ⚊ Updated May 23, 2025 | 2:11 PM
Porotta and beef fry. (X)
Synopsis: The Ernakulam District consumer disputes redressal Commission in Kerala dismissed a complaint filed by a journalist against a restaurant for not offering free gravy with beef fry and porotta.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala on 19 May dismissed a complaint filed by a journalist against a restaurant for not offering free gravy with beef fry and porotta.
The incident occurred in November 2024, when the complainant and a friend dined at the restaurant named The Persian Table and requested gravy with their order. However, the owner declined, stating that gravy was not served as a complimentary item.
Unhappy with the response, the customer complained to the Kunnathunadu Taluk supply officer. An inquiry was then conducted by both the Supply officer and the Food Safety officer, who confirmed that the restaurant did not have a policy of providing free gravy.
The matter was subsequently taken to the Consumer Commission, which ruled that the complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The bench, comprising Commission chief DB Binu and members V Ramachandran and TN Srividya, concluded that the case could not be entertained, as the restaurant neither offered nor charged for the gravy.
The complainant alleged that the conduct amounted to a restrictive trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which ensures the consumer’s right to seek redressal against unfair and exploitative practices.
He claimed that the restaurant’s policy appears to be designed to compel customers to buy an additional curry to get basic gravy, thereby exploiting consumers.
“The complainant has not raised any grievance regarding the quality, quantity, or safety of the food items that were ordered, consumed, and paid for. The core issue raised pertains solely to the non-availability of gravy, which was neither promised nor charged for,” the commission observed.
The Commission emphasised that the absence of a promise or monetary transaction regarding the gravy meant the complaint did not qualify for redress under consumer protection laws.
“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 observed.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil with inputs from Sreelakshmi Soman.)
