A consumer court in Kerala has dismissed a complaint filed by a journalist who was upset that a restaurant did not serve gravy with his porotta and beef fry.
The journalist, who works as a freelancer, had gone to a restaurant in Kolenchery with a friend last year. They ordered beef fry and porotta and asked the waiter for some gravy to go with the food. However, the waiter told them that the restaurant does not serve gravy with those items. The manager later confirmed this as the restaurant's policy.
Unhappy with the response, the journalist filed a complaint at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He said the food was dry and hard to eat without gravy, which caused him discomfort and emotional distress. He demanded ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, ₹10,000 for legal expenses, and also wanted legal action against the restaurant under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
But the consumer court rejected the complaint. It said there was no evidence that the restaurant misled the customer or promised to serve gravy. The menu and the bill did not mention gravy being included. The court also said that just because the restaurant chooses not to serve gravy does not mean it is breaking any law or providing poor service.
The journalist had argued that not providing gravy was a way to force customers to buy extra curry, calling it a "restrictive trade practice." But the court disagreed and said there was no merit in that claim.
In short, the court ruled that the restaurant did nothing wrong by not serving gravy, and the complaint was not valid under the Consumer Protection Act.
The journalist, who works as a freelancer, had gone to a restaurant in Kolenchery with a friend last year. They ordered beef fry and porotta and asked the waiter for some gravy to go with the food. However, the waiter told them that the restaurant does not serve gravy with those items. The manager later confirmed this as the restaurant's policy.
Unhappy with the response, the journalist filed a complaint at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He said the food was dry and hard to eat without gravy, which caused him discomfort and emotional distress. He demanded ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, ₹10,000 for legal expenses, and also wanted legal action against the restaurant under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
But the consumer court rejected the complaint. It said there was no evidence that the restaurant misled the customer or promised to serve gravy. The menu and the bill did not mention gravy being included. The court also said that just because the restaurant chooses not to serve gravy does not mean it is breaking any law or providing poor service.
The journalist had argued that not providing gravy was a way to force customers to buy extra curry, calling it a "restrictive trade practice." But the court disagreed and said there was no merit in that claim.
In short, the court ruled that the restaurant did nothing wrong by not serving gravy, and the complaint was not valid under the Consumer Protection Act.
You may also like
DNC vice chair David Hogg praises Rep. Jasmine Crockett, says Democratic need 'this type of leader'
Premier League: Liverpool's Mo Salah named Player of the Season
Florian Wirtz to Liverpool transfer: Bayern Munich release statement on move
Darts legend Michael van Gerwen announces he is splitting from wife Daphne
Freddie Mercury's 'daughter' reveals age she discovered Queen icon was real dad
