Bangalore District Commission Holds Restaurant Liable For Serving Cold Food, Failing To Resolve Issues With Aggrieved Customers
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held a restaurant liable for deficiency in services for serving cold, stale, and tasteless food, resulting in health complications for the consumer. Brief Facts: The Complainant and her family stopped at...
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held a restaurant liable for deficiency in services for serving cold, stale, and tasteless food, resulting in health complications for the consumer.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant and her family stopped at Udupi Garden Restaurant on NH-48 during their journey to Hassan for a family trip. They chose to have breakfast around 9 am but were deeply dissatisfied with the food, which they found to be cold, stale, and lacking in taste despite requesting hot food. The Complainant, a high blood pressure patient dependent on medication, was unable to eat due to the condition of the food. This led to health complications throughout the day which severely impacted their planned family outing. Despite sending a legal notice to the restaurant, neither compensation was offered, nor any response was received from the restaurant.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore, Karnataka (“District Commission”). The restaurant didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the contentions raised by the Complainant were uncontested by the restaurant. The District Commission referred to M/s. Single Builders and Promoters Ltd., Amarn Kumar Garg [2018 (I) CPR 314 (NC)], where it was held that failure to file a written statement can imply an admission of the allegations in a consumer complaint.
Further, the District Commission noted that despite repeated requests to serve hot food, the Complainant received no satisfactory response from the restaurant staff, who were reportedly rude. Therefore, the District Commission held that the restaurant, being a service provider, failed to fulfil its obligations towards the Complainant and her family. The restaurant was held liable for deficiency in service.
Consequently, the restaurant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant for the deficiency in service and the health issues caused. It was also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
Case Title: Mrs Tahara vs M/s Udupi Garden Restaurant and Ors.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 248/2023
Date of Order: 19.06.2024
Click Here To Read/Download Order