Yum Restaurants (India) Private Limited v. Kishan Hegde

Case Number

Revision Petition 156 of 2020 Against the Order dated 14/08/2019 in Appeal No. 1242/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka

Case Citation

2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 8

Bench

V.K. Jain in the New Delhi Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Decided On

5 February 2020

Relevant Sections

Consumer Protection Act, 2019- Sections 2(10), 2(11), 2(21) and 2(42)

Section 2(10): Defines defect as any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality of the goods.
Section 2(11): Defines deficiency as any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality of the services.
Section 2(21): Defines goods as moveable property of every kind. This definition expressly includes food in the definition of goods.
Section 2(42): Defines services of all kinds which are provided to their users, but excludes personal services and services rendered free of charge.

Facts of the Case

The complainant had ordered some food in the petitioner’s restaurant for a sum of Rs. 382/- on 23.12.2014. The food was served in an unhygienic way and was giving off a foul smell. Upon consuming the food, the complainant-respondent felt like vomiting. After consulting a doctor, he was diagnosed with food poisoning. He filed a consumer complaint against the restaurant. The district forum awarded him with a compensation of Rs. 10,000, cost of litigation Rs. 4,000 and also the cost of the food. The same decision was upheld by the State Commission.

The petitioners submitted that the onus was wrongly placed upon them and that they would be satisfied if the Commission observes that the onus for proving any defect in the food shall lie upon the customer who has visited the restaurant.

The Ratio of the Court

The New Delhi Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by V.K. Jain observed that the burden of proving defective food cannot be so high that an ordinary consumer who is visiting a restaurant to eat cannot realistically discharge it. The judge was of the opinion that once a consumer files an affidavit in the consumer complaint stating that the food which was served to him was defective, the initial onus of proving that the food was defective is discharged by virtue of that affidavit. This is, of course, unless it has been shown that the complaint was made due to external factors.

The judge stated that it is realistically impossible for the consumer of defective foods to collect the defective food and send it to the laboratory for testing. This is due to the fact that when such a complaint has been made by the consumer with regards to the food, he will not be allowed to carry the food. If a consumer does, however, somehow send the food to a laboratory and the results are affirmative of the food being defective, the restaurant can always claim that the food has become stale due to improper packing and handling.

The decision of the Court

The New Delhi Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by V.K. Jain held that the initial onus of defective food being served is discharged by the affidavit filed by the complainant along with the medical certificate provided by the doctor who diagnosed him with food poisoning.

The author is Om Gupta, a first-year law student pursuing BBA-LLB from the University School of Law and Legal Studies.