Archive · 23 May 2025
Court Dismisses Gravy Complaint Against Kerala Eatery
Someone complained to a special court about not getting gravy with their meal at a restaurant.
The court, which handles consumer issues, said the restaurant did nothing wrong.
They explained that the restaurant didn't promise gravy, and the person didn't complain about the food itself, just the lack of gravy.
Because the restaurant didn't have a legal obligation to provide it, they weren't doing anything wrong.
The person wanted money for being upset, but the court said no.
A consumer court dismissed a complaint against a restaurant in Kerala.
The complaint was about not providing gravy with parotta and beef fry.
The court stated there was no promise or obligation to provide gravy.
The complainant sought compensation for emotional distress.
The court found no merit in the claim, citing no deficiency in service.
- Who
- Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shibu S. Vayalakath, and Persian Table Restaurant
- What
- The Commission ruled that not providing gravy with parotta and beef fry isn't a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
- When
- May 23, 2025
- Where
- Kerala, India
- Why
- The Commission ruled on a case regarding the provision of gravy with parotta and beef fry.
Consumer's Perspective
Restaurant's Perspective
Provision of Gravy
Consumer's Perspective
Argued the restaurant's policy forced customers to buy an extra curry to obtain gravy, considered a restrictive trade practice, thus exploiting consumers.
Restaurant's Perspective
Restaurant stated that they had no legal obligation to provide gravy as it wasn't included or promised in the order.
- Court
- Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
- Complainant
- Shibu S. Vayalakath
- Restaurant
- Persian Table Restaurant, Kolenchery
- Issue
- Non-provision of gravy with parotta and beef fry
- Ruling
- Not a deficiency in service
