“No Free Gravy With Porotta and Beef Fry”, Consumer Court Rules in Favour of Kerala Restaurant

A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Ernakulam, Kerala, has dismissed a consumer complaint alleging that a restaurant failed to serve complimentary gravy with beef fry and porotta.

The forum, chaired by President D.B. Binu and members Ramachandran V. and Sreevidhia T.N., ruled in favor of the restaurant under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, stating that the establishment was neither legally nor contractually obligated to provide gravy.

What Did the Complainant Say?

The complainant, journalist Shibu S. Vayalakath, had visited The Persian Table, a restaurant in Kolenchery, Kerala, with a friend last November. When he requested complimentary gravy with his order of porotta and beef fry, the restaurant cited its policy of not providing it.

Displeased by the refusal, Vayalakath lodged a complaint with the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer.

A joint inquiry by the Taluk Supply Officer and the Food Safety Officer later concluded that gravy was not part of the restaurant's menu.

Subsequently, Vayalakath filed a petition with the consumer forum, seeking ₹1 lakh in compensation for emotional and mental distress, along with ₹10,000 to cover legal expenses.

In his complaint, he alleged a ‘deficiency in service’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, arguing that by not including gravy, the restaurant served an incomplete meal and thereby violated food safety standards.

What Did the Consumer Court Say?

The forum, however, held that the restaurant neither promised nor charged for the gravy.

It further clarified that a deficiency in service arises only when there is a legal requirement concerning the quality, quantity, or safety of a service.

Ruling in favor of the restaurant, the forum concluded that the complainant failed to present any evidence showing the restaurant was obligated to provide gravy. Therefore, no deficiency in service was established.

“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 court stated.

The complaint was dismissed, with the court ruling that the restaurant had not violated consumer rights by declining to serve gravy with the porotta and beef fry.

Also Read: 'Mysore Pak' is Now 'Mysore Shree': Jaipur Sweet Shops Drop ‘Pak’ from Traditional Sweet Names