Food Infection, Ernakulam District Commission Holds St. Marys Catering Liable For Deficiency In Service

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant attended a marriage reception, and the food was supplied by Marys Catering/Company. The complainant and other guests consumed the food, Later that night, the complainant experienced severe stomach discomfort and frequent loose bowel movements, leading him to seek medical attention. His condition was diagnosed as infective diarrhea, and he was hospitalized, incurring treatment expenses of Rs.11,845. Several other attendees also suffered from diarrhea and vomiting, prompting an inspection by the Koothattukulam Municipality's health wing of the company. The complainant, a civil excise officer, had to take a week of leave due to food poisoning, causing him severe pain, mental anguish, and hardships. The complainant argues that the supply of contaminated and unsafe food constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Despite serving a lawyer's notice, the company denied liability for compensation. The complainant seeks Rs.50,000 as compensation for the mental agony, financial loss, and hardships endured due to the 1st opposite party's supply of unsafe food. The complainant requests the relief sought in the previous paragraph and the cost of the proceedings.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

The commission sent notices to the opposite parties, but despite accepting the notices, the opposite parties did not submit their versions. Consequently, they are set ex-parte.

Observations by the Commission

The commission observed that despite being served with the notice, the company did not challenge the allegations made by the complainant. This conscious failure to file their written version is considered an admission of the allegations against them. As per legal precedent, this company's stance is not credible, and we have no reason to disbelieve the complainant's claims. The commission relied on the judgment of Yum Restaurants (India) (P)Ltd. v. Kishan Hegde, dealing with a complaint in regard to unhygienic food that emitted a foul smell, causing food poisoning to the complainant, wherein it was held that If a consumer files an affidavit in the consumer complaint instituted by him stating therein that the food served to him was rotten/stale/inferior in quality, such an affidavit will be sufficient to discharge the initial onus placed upon the customer. Furthermore, the commission observed that the company has a duty to supply safe food, and their failure to do so constitutes a deficiency in service.

The commission directed the company to pay Rs.30,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices committed by them, as well as for the mental agony, physical hardships, damages, including loss of work, and inconvenience caused to the complainant along with Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.