A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has dismissed a complaint filed by a freelance journalist against a local restaurant in Kolenchery, ruling that the absence of gravy with an order of porotta and beef fry does not constitute a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant, who had visited the restaurant with a friend last year, alleged that the food was served “dry and uncomfortable to eat” due to the absence of gravy. Claiming emotional distress and inconvenience, the journalist sought compensation of ₹1,00,000 for mental agony, ₹10,000 towards legal expenses, and requested the Commission to recommend legal action against the restaurant.
According to the complaint, the diners had ordered porotta and beef fry and specifically requested some gravy to accompany the meal. However, the waiter informed them that the restaurant does not provide gravy as a standard accompaniment—a policy that was later confirmed by the manager.
The consumer court, in its verdict, stated that there was no evidence of “misrepresentation, false promise, or deceptive trade practice” on the part of the restaurant. It noted that neither the menu nor the bill indicated that gravy would be included with the dishes ordered.
“There is no legal or contractual obligation on the part of the restaurant to serve gravy unless explicitly stated,” the Commission ruled. It further held that the internal policy of not providing gravy does not amount to a restrictive trade practice or exploitation under the law.
The complainant had argued that the restaurant’s policy was a form of indirect coercion, compelling customers to purchase an additional curry just to receive basic gravy. However, the Commission found this line of reasoning insufficient to establish a case under the Consumer Protection Act.
