Restaurant denied a customer free drinking water and forced him to buy a Rs.40 bottle, triggering a legal fight. The customer sued for harassment and unfair treatment, winning Rs.3,000 compensation for the restaurant’s unlawful and unethical conduct.
A diner in Faridabad requested complimentary drinking water while dining, but the restaurant staff declined the request, stating that only bottled water was available for purchase. The diner was taken aback by the waiter’s refusal to provide free water, insisting that complimentary options were not available.
At 10:38 PM, Mr. Sharma and his friends decided to dine at a well-known restaurant in Sector 85, Faridabad, Haryana, Delhi-NCR.
However, they were met with an unpleasant surprise. When Sharma requested complimentary drinking water, he was taken aback when the waiter denied him free water. Instead, the waiter insisted they purchase bottled water, claiming that complimentary water was unavailable.
Sharma informed the waiter that he was familiar with Indian laws and once again requested that both the waiter and the manager provide them with clean drinking water at no charge, arguing that compelling them to buy bottled water was illegal and unethical according to guidelines from the Hon’ble Courts, Consumer Commission, and FSSAI.
Despite his attempts, both the manager and the waiter remained unwavering, even suggesting he could take legal action if he wished, but they would not change their stance.
Ultimately, Sharma and his friends were left with no option but to buy two bottles of “Dasani Water” as recorded on bill NO. RB015173.
Feeling dissatisfied, Sharma filed a complaint with the Faridabad Consumer Commission, asserting that, under the current laws and regulations for restaurants and eateries in India particularly those from the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India every restaurant must provide free drinking water to its customers and cannot compel them to purchase bottled water.
Therefore, Sharma contended that the restaurant’s actions constituted a deficiency in service, warranting a complaint.
The restaurant did not appear at the hearing, leading to ex-parte proceedings.
Earlier, On December 5, 2025, Amit Arora, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, stated in his judgment that there was no evidence to challenge the ex-parte testimony provided by the complainant (Sharma).
Since the restaurant failed to appear to contest Sharma’s claims, the allegations went unrefuted.
ALSO READ: Indore Contaminated Water Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Preservation of Records
The Faridabad Consumer Commission concluded,
“From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party (restaurant) has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is allowed against opposite party.”
The opposite party is ordered to refund the amount of Rs.40 to the complainant and to pay Rs.3,000 as compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused. No litigation costs will be awarded to the complainant as he is representing himself.
Compliance must occur within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
