Restaurant not liable for skipping free gravy with porotta and beef fry, says Kerala Consumer Court in spicy verdict

In a quirky consumer rights case that sparked discussion online, the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has dismissed a complaint filed against a restaurant in Kerala for allegedly failing to serve complimentary gravy with a beef fry and porotta order.

The Commission concluded that the restaurant had no legal or contractual duty to provide free gravy and therefore could not be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, according to a report by legal news website Bar and Bench.

The case was presided over by DCDRC President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN, who found no evidence of any explicit or implied agreement requiring the restaurant to offer gravy with the meal.

“There was no contractual obligation — express or implied — on the part of the Opposite Party to provide gravy,” the Commission noted. “The non-providing of gravy cannot be considered a deficiency in service.”

The incident occurred in November 2024, when journalist Shibu S Vayalakath and a friend visited the Persian Table restaurant in Kolenchery. After ordering beef fry and porotta, they requested complimentary gravy. The restaurant owner, however, declined, clarifying that gravy was not included for free.

Following this, Shibu approached the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer, prompting an inquiry involving both the Supply and Food Safety officers. Their investigation confirmed that the restaurant did not have a practice of offering complimentary gravy to customers.

Taking the matter further, Shibu filed a case in the consumer court seeking ₹1 lakh in damages for emotional distress, ₹10,000 in legal expenses, and punitive action against the restaurant. He argued that denying gravy amounted to a restrictive trade practice and constituted a deficiency in service.

The court, however, ruled that the case was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, as the complaint did not relate to the quality, quantity, or safety of the food served. The Commission noted that the restaurant had neither advertised complimentary gravy nor charged for it.

In dismissing the case, the court reinforced that the absence of free gravy did not amount to a violation of consumer rights, bringing an unusual legal saga to a close.