THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Adding jus to a simmering debate, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (KSCDRC) has got porotta lovers’ juices flowing. On June 5, it set aside an order of the Ernakulam district panel dismissing the complaint of a person who was not served gravy with his dish. The district body failed to take a pro-consumer approach, the state commission observed.
On November 9, 2024, Shibu S, a freelance journalist from Ernakulam, was dining with a friend at Persian Table Restaurant in Kolenchery, when the eatery refused to provide gravy with their order of porotta and beef fry. Based on Shibu’s complaint, the taluk supply officer inspected the diner on November 20 and confirmed that gravy was not served. Shibu then filed a complaint with the district commission alleging deficiency in service.
The commission, however, dismissed the complaint on May 19, 2025 at the admission stage itself, holding there was no express or implied contractual obligation on the restaurant’s part to provide gravy.
The appeal petition was heard by the SCDRC bench comprising president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar and member K R Radhakrishnan. It found the district commission’s order unsustainable on two grounds.
The complaint filed on April 25, 2025 was dismissed on May 19, beyond the 21-day window prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence it stood deemed admitted by operation of law.
The commission further held that whether serving gravy with dry food items constituted an implied obligation crystallised by long-standing industry practice was entirely a matter for evidence. The district commission’s finding on that question at the threshold stage was premature and unjustified, it held.
It directed the district commission to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law. The state commission observed that the “district commission failed to take a pro-consumer approach in the matter in issue even though the consumer commissions are established to redress the grievances of the consumers, in accordance with law.”
The complainant was asked to appear before the district panel on July 8.