'Providing gravy with parotta and beef fry not legal obligation': Kerala Consumer panel on journalist's complaint

Parotta and beef fry is a popular combination, particularly in Kerala

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has stated that not providing gravy along with parotta and beef cannot be considered as a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

The order was issued on a petition filed by journalist Shibu S Vayalakath of Choondi against Persian Table Restaurant at Kolencherry.

According to Bar and Bench, district forum President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN observed that there was no legal or contractual obligation on the restaurant to provide gravy. Hence, 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 said.

In many places, restaurants and hotels also give gravy separately when the beef dish ordered is dry.

What actually happened?

Shibu S Vayalakath, a journalist, had visited The Persian Table, a restaurant at Kolenchery in November in 2024 along with a friend. They ordered beef fry and porotta and asked for gravy to be served with the meal.

The restaurant declined, citing its policy of not providing complimentary gravy. Shibu filed a complaint with the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer. According to Livelaw,  the complainant also submitted arguments referencing section 2(22) and 21 of the Act, and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 alleging mental agony due to serving of food without its essential components.

According to Bar and Bench, the consumer court said the complaint was not related to the quality, quantity or safety of the food but solely to the non-availability of gravy.

It also found that the restaurant had neither made a promise to serve gravy nor charged the complainant for it.

Referring to Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer forum said under the said provision, a "deficiency" in service arises only when there is a shortcoming in quality, quantity or safety of a service which is required to be maintained by law.

"Since the complainant failed to establish any legal or contractual duty on the part of the restaurant to provide gravy, the consumer forum concluded that there was no deficiency," the forum noted.