Restaurant switches hall last minute, serves stale food at birthday party: Consumer court orders Rs 50,000 compensation

NEW DELHI: The district consumer commission, Thiruvananthapuram, has directed a restaurant to pay Rs 50,000 to a customer after his daughter’s first birthday party was allegedly ruined by poor service and stale food, holding the restaurant’s manager and managing director jointly liable for deficiency in service.What was the issueComplainant Prathap Wilson approached a restaurant in Thiruvananthapuram, to book a hall for his daughter’s first birthday party on December 31, 2019. He chose this restaurant because his wife’s pre-wedding function had gone off well there back in 2014. The manager showed him two halls and Wilson picked the more spacious Lotus hall, agreeing to pay Rs 450 per person for around 150 guests.On December 26, 2019, he paid an advance of Rs 10,000 and reconfirmed the Lotus hall booking. The plan was for the hall to be ready by 2pm, with the function starting at 6pm, a prayer at 6:45pm, cake-cutting at 7pm, and dinner running until 9pm.According to the complaint, on December 30, 2019 — just a day before the event — the restaurant called Wilson to say the Lotus hall was no longer available and that the function would be shifted to Orchid hall. When he and his family went to the restaurant to object, the manager was unable to explain why, but eventually agreed to restore the original Lotus hall booking.Wilson alleged that he wasn’t allowed to decorate the hall properly, the sound system was switched off, and the mic was taken away. Even after the cake was cut, dinner wasn’t served — the food containers were empty, and there were no waiters or managers around.He further said that the guests and the priest waited 30 to 45 minutes, and some left without eating. When the food finally came around 7:30pm, there weren’t enough plates, and people had complaints that the vegetable soup had turned watery, the parathas were old and just reheated, the chicken in the curry smelled bad and looked stale, the fish curry ran out by 8:30pm while around 100 guests were still waiting to be served, and the gulab jamuns served for dessert were burnt.Wilson said he didn’t raise the issue during the event itself so as not to spoil it further, but his brother-in-law told a supervisor about the poor service before the function ended. He paid the remaining balance on January 1, 2020, and later sent the restaurant a legal notice seeking compensation for deficiency in service.However, the restaurant denied all the allegations in its reply.In its defence before the commission, the restaurant said the Lotus hall was never changed and that the event was held there as booked. It said decoration was limited only to avoid damaging the walls and ceiling, and that all the claims about the sound system, food quality, and shortage of plates were false.It further added that the buffet was arranged for 180 plates — more than the 150 guests expected — and that vessels were refilled whenever they ran low. The restaurant also claimed Wilson hadn’t paid the remaining Rs 71,000 balance, and on these grounds asked the commission to dismiss the complaint.What did the commission sayThe bench, comprising President P.V. Jayarajan and Members Preetha G. Nair and Viju V.R., first looked at the dispute over the unpaid balance. The restaurant had relied on a copy of its sales register to argue that Wilson hadn’t paid the Rs 71,000 due, but the commission found that this document carried no seal or signature of the restaurant and so could not be accepted as evidence.A cash voucher submitted by Wilson, on the other hand, showed the amount was in fact paid on January 1, 2020, leading the commission to conclude that the restaurant’s claim that the complainant has not paid the balance amount is not maintainable.On the complaint about food and service, the commission noted that there was no email or written complaint sent to the restaurant at the time, but found that the restaurant had not properly rebutted Wilson’s detailed allegations about the poor food and service. Calling these allegations “unrebutted,” the bench held the restaurant’s manager and managing director “deficient while rendering services to the complainant.“The commission directed the two opposite parties — the restaurant’s manager and managing director — to jointly and severally pay Wilson Rs 50,000 as compensation for the mental agony he suffered, along with Rs 3,000 towards the litigation cost, within one month of receiving the order.If the payment is delayed, the Rs 50,000 compensation amount will carry 9 percent annual interest from the date of the order until it is finally paid.