Lawyer wins Rs 15,000 payout after restaurant charges Rs 151 service charge

5 min readNew DelhiJun 16, 2026 10:00 AM IST

The consumer commission noted that the restaurant had admitted that they have charged the said amount and have agreed to refund the same. (AI-generated image)

The consumer commission of Jalandhar recently directed a restaurant to pay compensation of Rs 15,000 to an advocate who was allegedly charged Rs 151.53 as a service charge during a family dinner, observing that restaurants have a duty to clearly inform customers in advance about the levy of such charges.

President Harveen Bhardwa, along with members Jyotsna and Jaswant Singh Dhillon, was hearing a complaint filed by advocate Sanjeev Duggal, who visited the restaurant with his family in 2023 and was billed an additional amount as service charges.

“Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the terminology ‘staff contribution’ is being used, even then it is the duty of the restaurant to disclose to the customers the guidelines and about the levy of such charges. The entire pleadings and even the documents, nowhere show that the complainant was ever informed beforehand in a clear and unambiguous manner regarding the compulsory levy of such service charges/staff contribution,” the June 4 order read.

‘Service charge, not staff contribution charges’

The consumer body noted that the restaurant had admitted that they have charged the said amount and have agreed to refund the same.

It further found that the bills produced by the complainant specifically described the amount as “service charges” and not as “staff contribution”, contrary to the restaurant’s defence.

The consumer body stated that the complainant himself is an advocate and he knows the steps/measures to be taken in such types of incidents but failed to prove on record the allegations of the misbehaviour, harassment at the hands of the staff of the restaurant.

The consumer body pointed out that merely raising allegations does not prove that the food was of sub-standard quality.

It was found that the restaurant has charged service charges and not the staff contribution, without obtaining consent from the consumer.

The consumer body held that this act constitutes an unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to a refund of the said amount.

The commission directed the restaurant to pay compensation, including litigation expenses of Rs 15,000 for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant within 45 days.

A dine-in experience to litigation

It was placed on record that the complainant, Sanjeev Duggal, is a practising advocate at Jalandhar. It was added that on November 8, 2023, he visited the said restaurant along with his family comprising three adults and one minor daughter for buffet dinner.

According to the complainant, he specifically informed the restaurant staff that there were three adults and one minor child, but they charged buffet charges for four adults. The complainant further purchased liquor and was issued a bill.

In the said bills, service charges amounting to Rs 128.13 and Rs 23.40, respectively, totalling Rs 151.53, were levied at the rate of 3 per cent. The complainant alleged that when he objected to the charging of service charges and the charging of buffet charges for the minor child, the staff of the restaurant misbehaved with him and failed to address his grievance.

He also alleged that the quality of certain food items, particularly fish, was not satisfactory. Claiming deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony, harassment and humiliation, he sought refund of the service charges along with compensation of Rs 5 lakh and litigation expenses.

Story continues below this ad

He didn’t raise objections at that time

Representing the restaurant, advocate I S Bhatia contested the complaint and denied all allegations of misbehaviour, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The said restaurant pleaded that the complaint was misconceived and filed with mala fide intentions. It further stated that the amount charged in the bills was shown as staff contribution/service charge, that the same was prominently displayed on the menu card, and that it was their policy to waive such charge if any customer objected to it.

It was asserted that the complainant never raised any objection at the relevant time. While denying liability, the restaurant expressed willingness to refund the total amount of Rs 151.53 charged in the two bills.

The restaurant denied that the complainant ordered food for a minor. Rather, it was alleged that the complainant availed buffet service for four persons and alleged that the bills were paid by the complainant without any objection by him

Story continues below this ad

The complainant, appearing in person, argued before the commission concerning the matter.

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Expertise

Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.

Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:

Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.

Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More

Tags:

Advocates

Consumer dispute Redressal Commission