In a recent incident in Bihar, a restaurant found itself in hot water after failing to serve sambar alongside its renowned “Special Masala Dosa.” The consequence of this omission was a hefty penalty of INR 3,500. While it is customary for dosas to be accompanied by sambar and chutney, this specific eatery in Buxar overlooked the traditional serving, resulting in a legal dispute.
On August 15, 2022, lawyer Manish Gupta made a delightful choice to celebrate his birthday by treating himself to a scrumptious masala dosa from the renowned Namak restaurant.
Having paid INR 140 for the special treat, his excitement grew as he opened the packed dosa, only to be disappointed by the absence of the customary sambar. Feeling outraged by this oversight, he immediately headed to the restaurant to inquire about the missing 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 INR 140?”
Not finding satisfaction, Gupta opted to initiate legal proceedings by serving a notice to the restaurant. Unfortunately, the owner remained unresponsive, prompting Gupta to further escalate the matter by lodging a formal complaint with the District Consumer Commission.
Following an 11-month period of anticipation, the Division Bench of the Consumer Commission, headed by Chairman Ved Prakash Singh and accompanied by member Varun Kumar, rendered a verdict of negligence against the restaurant and imposed a fine of INR 3,500.
The division bench acknowledged the “mental, physical, and economic” distress endured by Manish Gupta as a result of the refusal of sambar, thus providing grounds for the imposed penalty. The fine encompassed two components: INR 1,500 for litigation expenses and INR 2,000 as the fundamental fine.
The restaurant has been given a 45-day duration by the court to make the fine payment. If the restaurant fails to comply within this specified timeframe, an additional 8% interest will be levied on the outstanding fine amount.
The public’s response to the verdict has been diverse. On one hand, there are those who consider it a fair consequence for the restaurant’s oversight. On the other hand, some contend that the penalty appears disproportionate for what they perceive as a minor issue.
Conversely, advocates of consumer rights contend that these penalties function as a deterrent, fostering accountability among businesses. They assert that the verdict serves as a vivid reminder to all enterprises to give paramount importance to customer satisfaction and uphold their commitments.
