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

‘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. 

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 

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