Bihar restaurant fined Rs 3,500 for not serving sambar with masala dosa

The customer opened the packed dosa only to realize that sambar was missing. (Representational)

A restaurant in Bihar recently faced the heat when it failed to serve sambar with its “Special Masala Dosa”, resulting in a penalty of Rs 3,500. While it is customary to serve sambar and chutney with dosas, this particular establishment in Buxar neglected to include the traditional accompaniment, leading to a legal dispute.

The incident happened on August 15, 2022, when lawyer Manish Gupta decided to indulge in a masala dosa from the Namak restaurant to celebrate his birthday.

Paying Rs 140 for the special treat, he eagerly opened the packed dosa only to realize that the customary sambar was missing. Outraged by the oversight, he promptly visited the restaurant to inquire about the absence of sambar.

The restaurant owner's reported response left much to be desired. In a dismissive manner, he allegedly retorted, "Do you want to buy the whole restaurant for Rs 140?" Unimpressed, Gupta decided to take legal action by serving a notice to the restaurant. When the owner did not respond, Gupta escalated the matter by filing a complaint with the District Consumer Commission.

After a 11-month wait, the Division Bench of Consumer Commission, consisting of Chairman Ved Prakash Singh and member Varun Kumar, found the restaurant guilty of negligence and imposed a fine of Rs 3,500.

In their ruling, the division bench recognized the "mental, physical, and economic" suffering experienced by Manish Gupta due to the denial of sambar, thereby justifying the penalty. The fine was divided into two parts: Rs 1,500 as litigation cost and Rs 2,000 as the basic fine.

The court has granted the restaurant a 45-day period to settle the fine. Failure to comply within the given timeframe would result in an additional 8% interest being charged on the fine amount.

The verdict has generated mixed reactions from the public. While some view it as a justifiable punishment for the restaurant's oversight, others argue that the penalty seems excessive for such a minor issue.

On the other hand, proponents of consumer rights believe that such penalties act as a deterrent and ensure accountability on the part of businesses. They argue that the ruling serves as a reminder to all establishments to prioritize customer satisfaction and fulfill their promises.