The Puducherry Consumer Commission held a restaurant guilty of deficiency in service after a customer found a dead fly in a plate of biryani. The Commission ordered compensation for mental distress and directed the restaurant to provide ten plates of fresh Hyderabadi chicken biryani free of cost.
Highlighting the importance of food safety and consumer rights, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry, has held a popular restaurant guilty of “deficiency in service” after a customer discovered a dead fly in a plate of biryani served at the establishment. The Commission directed the restaurant to compensate the customer for the distress caused by the incident and, in an unusual remedial measure, ordered it to provide ten plates of freshly prepared Hyderabadi chicken biryani free of cost.
The decision highlights the legal obligations of food establishments to maintain hygiene standards and reinforces the remedies available to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 when those standards are compromised.
Background of the Dispute
The complaint was filed by P. Sundarakumara Manikandan against Biryani & Co., a restaurant located on M.G. Road in Puducherry.
The dispute traces its origin to an incident that allegedly occurred on December 8, 2025. According to the complainant, he visited the restaurant along with his friend, Mohammed Niyasudeen, intending to have a meal at the establishment. During the course of dining, they allegedly discovered a dead insect in the biryani that had been served to them.
Shocked by the discovery, the complainant immediately documented the incident through photographs and video recordings. He maintained that the presence of the insect in the food reflected serious shortcomings in hygiene and food preparation standards at the restaurant.
The complainant further stated that the incident caused considerable anxiety and discomfort. Apart from concerns regarding the quality of food served, he claimed that the experience exposed him to potential health risks and undermined his confidence as a consumer.
Following the incident, the complainant issued a legal notice to the restaurant seeking compensation and calling for corrective measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
He claimed damages under several heads, including negligence, mental agony, health risks, inconvenience, and litigation expenses. In total, he sought compensation amounting to Rs 1.30 lakh.
When the response received from the restaurant failed to satisfy him, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging “deficiency in service.”
Proceedings Before the Commission
The matter came up before a Bench comprising President S. Mouttouvel and members A.S. Suvitha and G. Arumugam. Despite being served with notice regarding the proceedings, the restaurant did not enter appearance before the Commission or file any substantive defence. Consequently, the matter proceeded ex parte, meaning that the Commission adjudicated the dispute based on the material produced by the complainant.
The Commission examined the evidence placed on record, including photographs, videos, legal notices, and responses exchanged between the parties.
While assessing the evidence, the Commission observed that the photographs submitted by the complainant were not sufficiently clear to conclusively establish the nature of the contamination.
However, the video recordings produced before the Commission painted a different picture.
According to the Commission, the video footage clearly depicted the presence of a dead insect in the biryani. Upon examination, the insect appeared to be a fly, thereby lending credibility to the complainant’s allegations regarding the condition of the food served by the restaurant.
The Commission considered the video evidence to be significant in establishing the factual foundation of the complaint.
An important aspect of the Commission’s reasoning related to the restaurant’s own conduct following the incident. The Commission noted that after the complainant posted a review regarding the episode on Google, the restaurant publicly responded to the complaint. In that response, the establishment acknowledged the incident, apologised to the customer, described it as an isolated occurrence, and assured that corrective steps would be taken to prevent a recurrence. However, when replying to the formal legal notice, the restaurant adopted a different position and denied liability.
The Commission observed that these inconsistent responses weakened the credibility of the restaurant’s defence. According to the Commission, an establishment cannot acknowledge an incident in a public forum and subsequently take a contradictory stand in legal proceedings without adequate explanation.
After evaluating the available material, the Commission concluded that the restaurant had failed in its duty to provide safe and hygienic food to consumers.
The Bench held that the service rendered by the restaurant fell within the scope of “deficiency in service” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The presence of a dead fly in food intended for human consumption was found to be indicative of inadequate hygiene and quality control measures.
The Commission observed that consumers have a legitimate expectation that food served by restaurants will meet basic standards of cleanliness and safety. Any lapse affecting those standards can give rise to consumer liability.
Having found the restaurant responsible for the deficiency, the Commission awarded compensation to the complainant. The restaurant was directed to pay Rs 10,000 towards compensation for the deficiency in service, as well as the mental agony, inconvenience, and physical hardship allegedly suffered by the customer due to the incident. Additionally, the Commission awarded Rs 3,000 towards litigation expenses incurred in pursuing the consumer complaint.
Apart from monetary compensation, the Commission issued a distinctive remedial direction aimed at restoring consumer confidence. The restaurant was ordered to provide the complainant with ten plates of freshly prepared Hyderabadi chicken biryani free of charge.
The Commission specified that the meals must be supplied at the rate of two plates every week over a period of five consecutive Sundays. The order further stipulated that the food must be prepared strictly in accordance with applicable food safety and hygiene standards. The restaurant was directed to commence compliance with this requirement within two weeks of receiving the order.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE