Mumbai: The Mumbai Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that allowing outside food in a restaurant or hotel is a matter of company policy and managerial discretion. The commission on Tuesday dismissed a complaint filed by Kurla resident Kalpana Gaikwad against a Pune restaurant earlier this year.
Gaikwad had complained after Malvan Tadka Seafood Kitchen and Bar refused to allow her ‘unwell’ mother-in-law to consume home-cooked food. The commission noted that every restaurant is entitled to regulate the use of its premises and prescribe reasonable conditions governing its services.
“The complainant has failed to point out any statutory provision casting a legal obligation upon the opposite party to permit consumption of outside food within its premises. Therefore, refusal to permit outside food, by itself, cannot be construed as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice,” it said.
The commission further held that charging Rs 10 above the maximum retail price of Rs 30 for bottled water does not constitute an unfair trade practice. Such transactions are defined as composite services, encompassing table service, ambiance, and hospitality, rather than simple retail sales of commodities.
“In this regard, it is well settled that hotels and restaurants do not merely sell commodities, but provide a composite package of services, including seating arrangements, table service, ambience, maintenance of premises, hospitality and other amenities. The customer does not visit a restaurant solely for purchasing a bottle of water but for availing the overall services offered by the establishment,” the commission said.
With respect to consuming outside food, the commission noted that Gaikwad relied upon a pathology report to contend that her mother-in-law was suffering from a serious ailment and was advised to consume only home-cooked food. The commission stated that on perusal of the document, it is found that the pathology report merely contains certain laboratory findings.
“The report neither discloses the exact ailment suffered by the patient nor contains any prescription, dietary advice or recommendation of a medical practitioner directing the patient to consume only home-cooked food.” The commission further noted that no medical certificate, prescription, treatment record or affidavit of the treating doctor was produced.
“Therefore, there is no cogent material on record to establish that consumption of restaurant food was medically prohibited or that permission to consume outside food was medically indispensable,” it stated.
