Poor food, late service sour child’s birthday celebration, restaurant to pay Rs 50,000

A bench of president P V  Jayarajan and members Preetha G Nair and Viju V R held that the restaurant failed to effectively rebut allegations relating to poor service and food quality during the function.

“The allegations of the complainant that the poor quality of the food items served to the invitees of the complainant and the poor services rendered by the staff of opposite parties 1 and 2 are unrebutted,” the commission said on June 15.

Kerala consumer commission grants relief after guests at a child’s birthday celebration allegedly faced poor service and food shortage. (Image generated by AI)

Advance payment, celebration

One Prathap Wilson booked the Lotus hall at Mothi Mahal restaurant for his daughter’s birthday celebration scheduled to be held on December 31, 2019.

An advance amount of Rs 10,000 was paid on December 26, 2019, towards the booking and arrangements for the function.

The event programme included a prayer ceremony at 6.45 pm, cake-cutting at 7 pm, and dinner for invited guests thereafter.

The complainant later alleged several deficiencies relating to event management, delayed food service, and the quality of food served.

The restaurant denied all allegations raised in the complaint and contested the proceedings before the consumer commission.

Hall change sparked controversy before the event

According to the complaint, the controversy began on December 30, 2019, just a day before the birthday celebration was scheduled to take place.

When the complainant contacted the restaurant, the manager allegedly informed him over the phone that the Lotus hall booked for the event was unavailable.

The complainant was allegedly told that the function had been shifted to the Orchid hall, which he considered less spacious and less attractive.

Surprised by the last-minute development, the complainant and his family immediately visited the hotel to seek an explanation.

Story continues below this ad

They questioned the manager about the venue change a day before the event, despite a confirmed booking. According to the complaint, the manager failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the sudden change in venue.

The family reportedly pointed out that invitations had already been distributed, mentioning the original venue of the celebration. After considerable persuasion by the complainant and his relatives, the manager allegedly agreed to restore the booking of the Lotus hall.

‘Disruptions’ during function

The complainant alleged that restrictions were imposed on decorating the hall despite prior arrangements for the celebration. He further claimed that the sound system was disconnected and the microphone was removed during the function.

According to the complaint, these actions disrupted preparations and affected the smooth conduct of the birthday programme. The complainant alleged that even after the cake-cutting ceremony was completed, the buffet dinner was not served on time.

Story continues below this ad

He claimed that guests approaching the buffet counters found the serving vessels empty and unattended. According to the complaint, no catering staff or responsible officials, including the manager, were present when dinner was expected to begin.

Guests allegedly waited for food while family members attempted to locate restaurant personnel and seek assistance. The complaint states that invitees, including the priest who attended the birthday celebration, were left waiting for dinner.

Food service allegedly commenced only around 7.30 pm after repeated requests were made to available staff members. By that time, according to the complaint, some invitees and the priest had already left the venue without having dinner.

The complainant alleged that these guests waited nearly 30 to 45 minutes before eventually leaving due to the delay. He further claimed that the restaurant failed to provide sufficient number of plates for all invitees attending the function.

Story continues below this ad

‘Guests raised complaints’

Apart from delayed service, the complainant alleged that the quality of food served during the dinner was unsatisfactory.

According to him, the vegetable soup initially served became watery and unappetising as the evening progressed. The parathas served during dinner were allegedly old and reheated. The complaint further alleged that the chicken pieces served in the curry appeared stale and emitted a foul smell.

The complaint also stated that by around 8.30 pm, fish pieces in the fish molly dish had been exhausted. Guests allegedly found only gravy remaining in the serving vessels despite many invitees still attending the dinner. The dessert also attracted criticism, with the complainant alleging that the gulab jamuns served were burnt and spoiled.

According to the complaint, several close relatives and invitees expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of food and service. The complainant stated that he avoided confronting the management during the function to prevent further embarrassment before guests.

Story continues below this ad

Restaurant denied all allegations

The restaurant denied all allegations and maintained that the birthday function was successfully conducted in the Lotus hall. It contended that no venue change ultimately took place and that all promised facilities were provided to the complainant.

The management denied disconnecting the sound system or removing microphones during the celebration. According to the restaurant, decoration restrictions were imposed only to prevent damage to walls and ceilings.

The restaurant also denied allegations of delayed dinner service and shortage of food items during the function. It maintained that approximately 180 guests were served food despite an expected attendance of around 150 persons.

The management further asserted that no guest had complained regarding the quality or quantity of food served.

Story continues below this ad

Allegations relating to watery soup, stale chicken, poor-quality parathas, shortage of fish, and burnt desserts were specifically denied.

Dispute over ‘non-payment’

The restaurant further alleged that the complainant had failed to pay a balance amount of Rs 71,000. To support this claim, the management relied upon a copy of its sales register produced before the commission.

The complainant, however, produced payment vouchers showing that the amount had been paid on January 1, 2020. He argued that the allegation of non-payment was false and contrary to the documentary record.

Commission rejects restaurant’s defence

The commission examined the documentary evidence produced by both parties.

It found that the sales register relied upon by the restaurant did not contain any seal or signature. Consequently, the commission held that the document could not be accepted as reliable evidence.

The payment voucher produced by the complainant, however, clearly reflected payment of Rs 71,000 on January 1, 2020.

The commission, therefore, rejected the restaurant’s contention that the balance amount remained unpaid.

While considering the remaining allegations, the commission noted that independent documentary evidence was limited. However, it observed that the allegations regarding poor service and food quality remained substantially unrebutted.

The commission found that the restaurant failed to effectively counter the complainant’s allegations concerning the conduct of the event.

Particular significance was attached to allegations relating to delayed dinner service and dissatisfaction among invitees.

The commission ultimately concluded that the restaurant was deficient in rendering services to the complainant.

Compensation and costs

Allowing the complaint, the commission directed the restaurant to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

It further awarded Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs incurred during the proceedings. The commission directed payment within one month from receipt of the order by the parties.

Failing compliance within the stipulated period, the compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent  per annum until realisation.

Significance of ruling

This ruling reinforces that restaurants and event venues are accountable for the quality of services promised to consumers for special occasions. Delayed service, inadequate arrangements, and poor-quality food can amount to deficiency in service when they adversely affect the experience for which a consumer has paid.

Story continues below this ad

The decision also highlights that service providers cannot escape liability when serious allegations remain unrebutted and result in inconvenience, embarrassment, and mental agony to consumers and their guests.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Kerala contact: 1800-425-1550) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

(Written by Aparajita Prasad. She is an intern with The Indian Express)