The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has dismissed a complaint filed by a consumer who claimed a restaurant failed to serve complimentary gravy with his order of porotta and beef fry. The ruling emphasizes that restaurants have no legal or contractual obligation to provide gravy, and thus, not providing it does not constitute a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This verdict offers clarity for restaurants and consumers alike, establishing that gravy is not an automatic entitlement.
The case, Shibu S. Vayalakath v. Manager, The Persian Table Restaurant & ors, arose when Shibu S. Vayalakath, a journalist, visited The Persian Table restaurant in Kolenchery with a friend in November of last year. After ordering porotta and beef fry, a staple dish in Kerala, he requested gravy, which the restaurant refused, citing its policy. Dissatisfied, Vayalakath filed a complaint with the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer. A joint inquiry by the Taluk Supply Officer and the Food Safety Officer confirmed that the restaurant did not include gravy as part of its menu offerings.
Subsequently, Vayalakath approached the consumer forum seeking ₹1 lakh in compensation for emotional distress and mental agony, along with ₹10,000 for legal costs and action against the restaurant. He argued that denying gravy constituted a restrictive trade practice and a deficiency in service, further claiming the restaurant violated food safety standards by serving an "incomplete meal".
The consumer court, however, found no merit in his arguments. Presided over by President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN, the commission observed that Vayalakath did not raise any concerns regarding the quality, quantity, or safety of the food. His complaint solely pertained to the non-availability of gravy, which was neither promised nor charged for.
The commission stated, "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." They further clarified that a restaurant's internal policy regarding accompaniments, in the absence of a legal or contractual obligation, cannot be construed as a deficiency in service.
The restaurant owner expressed relief at the verdict, stating that providing free gravy to every customer would increase operational costs and impact the business's sustainability. He also recounted that Vayalakath initially did not ask for gravy but requested it later and became argumentative when the restaurant clarified its policy.
This ruling clarifies that customers cannot demand gravy as a right when visiting hotels and restaurants. It reaffirms that restaurants have the autonomy to set their own policies regarding complimentary items, as long as there is no misrepresentation or deceptive trade practice. The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint, underscoring that the failure to serve free gravy with beef fry and porotta did not violate consumer rights.
