In a quirky case that has caught the attention of foodies across Kerala, the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Court has ruled that a restaurant is not obligated to provide free gravy with an order of beef fry and porotta. The complaint, filed by Ernakulam resident Shibu S. against ‘The Persian Table’ restaurant at Patham Mile in Kolanchery, was dismissed, bringing an end to a culinary controversy that sparked debates among local food enthusiasts.
The incident dates back to November 2024, when Shibu and his friend visited the popular eatery and ordered the classic Kerala combo of beef fry and porotta. Expecting a side of rich, spicy gravy to complement their meal, Shibu was disappointed when the restaurant declined to provide it. The restaurant owner informed them that serving gravy was not part of their policy. Unhappy with the response, Shibu escalated the matter by lodging a complaint with the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer.
The taluk supply officer and the food safety officer conducted an investigation, which confirmed that ‘The Persian Table’ did not have a policy of offering free gravy with their dishes. Undeterred, Shibu took his grievance to the consumer court, arguing that the absence of free gravy constituted a deficiency in service.
The court, presided over by D.B. Binu and comprising members V. Ramachandran and T.N. Srividya, heard the case and delivered a clear verdict. The bench noted that Shibu’s complaint did not pertain to the quality, quantity, or safety of the food served—only the absence of free gravy. The court observed that the restaurant had neither promised free gravy nor charged extra for it, thus negating any obligation to provide it.
Citing Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the court defined a deficiency in service as a shortfall in the quality, quantity, or safety of services as mandated by law or promised by the service provider. Since Shibu could not prove any legal or contractual obligation for the restaurant to provide free gravy, the court ruled that the absence of gravy did not constitute a deficiency in service.
“The complainant failed to establish that the restaurant was bound by any law or agreement to serve free gravy with porotta and beef fry,” the court stated in its order, dismissing the complaint.
