Restaurant not obliged to serve gravy with parotta and beef fry: Kerala Consumer Court
A district consumer disputes redressal forum (DCDRC) in Kerala recently dismissed a complaint filed by a consumer who alleged that a restaurant failed to serve free gravy along with beef fry and porotta.
District forum Ernakulam President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN observed that there was no obligation on the restaurant to provide gravy. Thus, the court said, there was no deficiency in service by the restaurant under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
"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 of 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 consumer court ruling on 19 May said as reported by legal news website Bar and Bench.
The incident took place in November 2024 when the complainant and a friend dined at The Persian Table restuarant and requested gravy with their order. However, the owner declined, stating that gravy was not served as a complimentary item.
The customer, Shibu S Vayalakath, a journalist, complained to the Kunnathunadu Taluk supply officer. An inquiry was then conducted by both the Supply officer and the Food Safety officer, who confirmed that the restaurant did not have a policy of providing free gravy.
There was no contractual obligation... on the part of the Opposite Party to provide gravy.
The matter was eventually taken to the Consumer Court, which ruled that the complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Delay in settling accident claim, insurance firm directed to pay over ₹2 lakh
The Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an insurance company to pay over ₹2 lakh with interest after finding it guilty of delay in settling claim for repair of the vehicle involved in an accident. The Future General Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay Ramesh alias Ramesh Kulal, a resident of Mani in Bantwal taluk of Dakshina Kannada district, ₹2.28 lakh with interest of 6% from March 17, 2025, the date of complaint, till realisation of the amount. It also directed the firm to also pay ₹25,000 as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony, and inconvenience caused to Mr. Kulal. It was also asked to pay ₹5,000 towards cost of litigation. Mr. Kulal owned a light commercial vehicle, which he used as goods carrier. This vehicle was insured for ₹2.28 lakh and it was valid from February 24, 2024 to February 23, 2025. On May 11, 2024, while the vehicle was returning to Mangaluru from Sullia amidst heavy rain, the driver lost control over vehicle near Anegundi. It hit the lorry coming from the opposite side and overturned. Authorised repairer of the vehicle in Mangaluru estimated the loss at ₹4.10 lakh, which was more than the sum insured. In the complaint to the commission, Mr. Kulal said the insurance firm deliberately delayed in settling the claim, which was submitted along with necessary documents. The commission issued notice to the firm, which failed to appear. Hence it was placed exparte. Quoting the 2018 ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the District Commission said: 'In the absence of version and affidavit from their (insurance firm) side, complaint allegation of the complainant (Mr. Kulal) is to be held as a proved fact'. The commission comprising of president (in charge) Somashekarappa K. Handigol and member H.G. Sharadamma on June 10 held there was deficiency in service by the insurance firm. The commission directed the firm to make the amount within 45 days from the date of pronouncement of order. Failing which amounts will carry 8% per annum interest from the date of default. Mr. Kulal may initiate civil/criminal proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, if the firm fails to comply with District Commission's order.
Economic Times
2 days ago
- Economic Times
Let's firm up for India's fab four
For the first time, plans to create India's own globally competitive CA firms has moved from headlines to action. With GoI forming a committee to examine pathways for Indian CA firms to scale, the country has begun signalling something long overdue. This shift isn't just about protectionism, but also about correcting structural imbalances that have long disadvantaged firms. Such disadvantage comes not for lack of ambition, but due to legacy regulations that deter building cross-functional capacity, accessing external capital and even competitively branding 1991, the economy has seen liberalisation in almost all sectors. FTAs are now unlocking new opportunities at scale. But one sector still seems to warrant special protection: professional services. What's needed now isn't just incremental reform, but a systemic shift in how India regulates professional services, especially in the audit space. Done right, it could enable Indian CA firms not just to survive but also to thrive. If not, the notion of them being an 'endangered species' may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy, leaving large Indian CA firms on the brink of extinction. Indian CA firms today can't share profits with anyone but Indian-qualified CAs - a legacy rule from a pre- digital, pre-global era. In contrast, global firms admit non-CA partners from tech, legal or consulting fields, helping them tap top talent to serve the complex modern needs of clients. India should allow multidisciplinary partnerships, letting non-CAs join as partners, while retaining majority control with Indian-qualified CAs, as is common globally. This would help firms raise capital, attract investment and expand abroad. Capital or capability alone is not enough. Brand identity is just as important when firms compete for large, complex mandates. Today, Indian CA firms are constrained by legacy norms that restrict the use of brand identities, or references to global networks, even though over 100 of India's top firms have such affiliations. This limits their ability to signal reach, consistency and capacity. In a marketplace where clients often rely on brand as a proxy for capability, these archaic norms become a structural bolt that holds back Indian CA firms. Allowing CA firm LLPs to choose brand names and advertise under guidelines aligned with the Companies Act and Consumer Protection Act will unbolt Indian firms and let them run the race. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) recently released draft guidelines. These are welcome. However, disclosure obligations of overseas counterparties need to be simplified if this is to serve its primary purpose. Once Indian firms are in the race, they will need quick access to large mandates. If preceded by capital, capability and capacity, some level of demand enablement for Indian firms would be the final catalyst for turbocharging their run. Such Indian CA firms are often not even in contention for a major audit or a government consulting contract. This can be enabled through preferential allotment of PSU audits or government contracts, and by extending joint audits to all top 50-100 companies for a short period of 1-2 5-year terms. The goal is not equality, but equity. What India needs today is not just more small firms, but larger and stronger institutions. With the major April 1, 2027, round of mandatory audit firm rotation around the corner, there is a window of opportunity, although one that will be shut if we don't deliver by January 1, 2026. Most credible companies will close their new auditor choice in first half of 2026. That choice will hopefully include new 'Indian Big 10 or 20'. That enhanced choice will be better for India and all capital market participants. That is how we will enable the ecosystem - and realise the ambition of having four Indian firms at the centre of a new global 'Big 8' sooner than later. The writer is CEO, Grant Thornton Bharat
The Print
2 days ago
- The Print
Sale of defective TV: E-commerce firm, manufacturer found guilty of deficiency in service
It ordered the e-commerce company and the manufacturer to refund Rs 13,999 paid for the defective TV along with interest as well as give additional compensation of Rs 15,000 for mental agony and inconvenience and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The manufacturer's defence of attempting to resolve the issue was not supported by substantial proof, indicating a 'lackadaisical approach', the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai said in an order passed earlier this month. Mumbai, Jun 26 (PTI) Ruling that Flipkart cannot 'escape liability' as 'mere intermediary' in an online purchase, a consumer commission here has found the e-commerce platform and television manufacturing company Thomson guilty of deficiency in service after a defective TV was delivered to a customer. The complainant had purchased a Thomson brand LED TV via Flipkart on February 19, 2021 but it soon began throwing up technical glitches, including power failure, sound issues and display defects. Repeated attempts to seek redressal from the manufacturer and the online seller were in vain as no effective resolution or replacement was provided. The complainant then approached the commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Flipkart contended that it merely operates as an online intermediary facilitating transactions between sellers and consumers and does not sell or manufacture goods, adding that the complainant did not utilize the 10-day replacement policy, following which the responsibility shifted to the manufacturer. Flipkart asserted it was not a 'service provider' under the Consumer Protection Act. Thomson TV India Private Limited claimed the product was covered under warranty, with concerns attended to as per standard terms. The firm attributed delays or non-functionality to misuse, mishandling, or conditions beyond its control. The commission's order said the product malfunctioned shortly after purchase and timely complaints were made. 'Thomson TV's defence that it attempted to resolve the complaint is not supported by any substantial proof such as service visit reports or replacement records. Rather, the correspondence placed on record suggests a lackadaisical approach by the manufacturer's customer service,' the commission held in the order. The commission cited the failure to repair or replace the defective product under warranty as 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice'. Addressing the e-commerce firm's role, the commission noted the invoice bore Flipkart's branding and that customer service was routed through its platform. Hence, it 'cannot escape liability', the commission said, adding that Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules 2020 mandate e-commerce entities to ensure sellers fulfil obligations to consumers. Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the commission said Flipkart cannot escape liability as a 'mere intermediary' given its active role in the sale and post-sale process. The e-commerce firm and TV manufacturer were jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service, the commission stated. PTI AVI BNM This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
