No Free Gravy with Parotta? Ernakulam Commission Rules It’s Not a Consumer Rights Issue
Pranav B Prem
In an unusual yet interesting case from Kerala, the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that a complaint filed over the non-provision of free gravy with beef fry and parotta is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Commission dismissed the complaint, observing that the restaurant never promised such an accompaniment and there was no contractual obligation to provide it free of cost.
The case was filed by Shibu S. Vayalakath, a freelance journalist residing in Ernakulam. According to his complaint, he and a friend had dined at The Persian Table Restaurant in Kolenchery on the night of November 9, 2024. They ordered beef fry and parotta but were not served any gravy. Shibu alleged that the food was dry and difficult to eat without gravy, and upon enquiry, the waiter and the restaurant manager informed him that providing gravy was not their policy. Despite the inconvenience, the bill was paid in full.
The complainant then escalated the issue by approaching the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer, who conducted an inspection on 20th November 2024 and confirmed that the restaurant does not serve gravy with such dry food items. Subsequently, the matter was taken up before the Consumer Commission, where the complainant sought ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, ₹10,000 towards legal expenses, and recommended further action against the restaurant management.
In his argument before the Commission, the complainant claimed that the restaurant’s refusal amounted to a restrictive trade practice and a deficiency in service. He contended that denying gravy compelled customers to purchase additional curry, thereby exploiting consumers. He invoked provisions from the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, asserting that serving dry food without its expected accompaniment diminished the quality and completeness of the meal.
However, the Commission, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and T.N. Sreevidhia, disagreed. The bench noted that the core grievance was the non-availability of gravy, which was neither advertised nor charged for. There was no complaint regarding the quality, safety, or quantity of the items actually served.
The Commission examined Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines “deficiency” as any shortcoming or imperfection in service that is required by law or by contract. In this case, the Commission held that there was no express or implied contract requiring the restaurant to provide gravy. The menu and the bill did not reflect any such obligation, nor was there any misrepresentation by the restaurant.
It further clarified that for a consumer complaint to be maintainable, there must be a clear transactional relationship with a direct connection between the consideration paid and the service availed. The Commission found no evidence of any unfair trade practice or deceptive conduct on part of the restaurant. A restaurant’s internal policy, in the absence of any legal or contractual mandate, cannot be construed as a deficiency in service, the bench ruled.
Ultimately, the Commission concluded: “The present complaint, based entirely on the non-provision of a free accompaniment not included in the purchase terms, falls outside the scope of maintainable consumer disputes.” Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Shibu.S .Vs. Manager, The Persian Table Restaurant &2 Ors.
Case No: CC No. 549 of 2025
Coram: Shri. D.B. Binu [President], Shri. V. Ramachandran [Member], Smt. Sreevidhia T.N [Member]
[Read/Download order]
