Order Name: Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vs Marys Catering/Company
This article discusses a recent judgment from the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which involves a catering company and a consumer who suffered from severe food poisoning after consuming food provided by the company.
The plaintiff, a civil excise officer, attended a wedding reception where the food was catered by Marys Catering/Company. Unfortunately, he and several other guests started experiencing stomach discomfort and frequent diarrhea later in the evening. The plaintiff’s condition worsened, leading him to seek medical attention where he was diagnosed with infective diarrhea. The medical expenses amounted to Rs.11,845.
Besides the physical discomfort, the plaintiff had to take a week off work due to his condition, causing him significant distress and hardship. He accused the company of providing contaminated and unsafe food, which he believed constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. He sought compensation of Rs.50,000 for the mental agony, financial loss, and hardships endured due to the incident.
The commission sent notices to the catering company, seeking their version of the events. However, the company chose not to respond, leading the commission to set the case ex-parte.
The commission noted that the company’s failure to respond to the allegations was viewed as an admission of guilt. The commission cited a previous case, Yum Restaurants (India) (P)Ltd. v. Kishan Hegde, where it was concluded that a customer’s affidavit stating that the food served was of inferior quality is enough to prove the deficiency of service.
The commission held that it was the company’s responsibility to ensure the food they provide is safe for consumption. Failure to do so, as in this case, is considered a deficiency in service. As a result, the commission ordered the catering company to pay the plaintiff Rs.30,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, and for the mental agony, physical hardships, damages, including loss of work, and inconvenience caused to the complainant. Additionally, the company was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.
The key takeaway from this judgment is that companies, especially those in the food and catering sector, have a duty to ensure the safety and quality of their products. Failure to do so can lead to legal repercussions, including significant financial penalties.
