A Kerala Consumer Court said restaurants need not give free gravy with porotta and beef fry. It rejected a journalist’s Rs.1 lakh claim for emotional distress after a restaurant refused to serve extra gravy.
Kochi: A district consumer disputes redressal forum (DCDRC) in Ernakulam has recently dismissed a complaint from a consumer who claimed that a restaurant failed to serve complimentary gravy with beef fry and porotta.
The forum, led by President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN, determined that the restaurant had no legal or contractual obligation to provide gravy, thus ruling that there was no deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The consumer court 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,”
The complainant, journalist Shibu S Vayalakath, visited The Persian Table, a restaurant in Kolenchery, last November with a friend. After ordering beef fry and porotta, he requested gravy, which the restaurant refused, citing its policy against offering complimentary gravy.
Dissatisfied with this response, Shibu filed a complaint with the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer. Following a joint inquiry by the Taluk Supply Officer and the Food Safety Officer, it was confirmed that the restaurant did not include gravy as part of its menu.
Subsequently, Shibu approached the consumer forum, seeking Rs.1 lakh for emotional distress and mental agony, along with Rs.10,000 for legal costs and action against the restaurant.
Also Read: [Moti Mahal vs. Daryaganj] Battle Over ‘Butter Chicken’ Trademark in Delhi High Court
He argued that the refusal to provide gravy constituted a restrictive trade practice and a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, claiming that the restaurant violated food safety standards by serving an incomplete meal.
However, the consumer court clarified that the complaint did not pertain to the quality, quantity, or safety of the food, but rather to the absence of gravy. The forum found that the restaurant had not promised to serve gravy and had not charged for it.
Citing Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, the forum explained that a ‘deficiency’ in service arises only when there is a legal requirement regarding the quality, quantity, or safety of a service.
Since the complainant failed to demonstrate any legal or contractual duty for the restaurant to provide gravy, the forum concluded that there was no deficiency.
The consumer forum further explained,
“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,”
The legal dispute began in November last year when a customer ordered parotta and beef one of the state’s most beloved dishes, commonly found in eateries. Since parotta, made from refined flour, is flaky, many diners prefer to have gravy to soften it and enhance its flavour.
Typically, restaurants serve gravy alongside dry beef dishes, with some establishments offering a gravy made from an onion base, while others prepare the beef as a curry.
Recalling the events that sparked the prolonged legal battle, the owner of the ‘Persian Table’ restaurant stated that the customer initially did not request gravy.
The owner recounted,
“Later, he said he wanted gravy as well. We explained that we normally don’t provide it, but we do serve it if the order is specifically for beef with gravy. He started arguing, and we clarified our policy. Unhappy with our response, he left,”
The owner continued,
“We later discovered that he had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, who came to inspect our establishment. When nothing resulted from that, he filed a petition with the consumer court,”
Highlighting their satisfaction with the court’s decision, the restaurant owner expressed,
“Now the verdict has come, and we are pleased that the court understood our logical reasoning for not providing free gravy. We have significant monthly salary expenses, and offering free gravy would increase our costs, making it an unfeasible option,”
With this ruling, it has been established that customers cannot demand gravy as an entitlement when visiting hotels and restaurants.
As a result, the complaint was dismissed, and the forum made it clear that the restaurant’s failure to serve free gravy with beef fry and porotta did not violate consumer rights.
The complainant, Shibu S, appeared in person at the hearing.
Case Title: Shibu S Vayalakath v Manager, The Persian Table Restaurant & ors
Also Attachment