Follow us on Google News
The Gurugram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a restaurant to refund a ₹401 service charge and pay ₹31,000 in compensation and litigation expenses after finding that it had unfairly imposed the charge on a customer despite her objection.
The commission held that automatically adding a service charge to a restaurant bill and refusing to remove it at a customer’s request amounted to an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
The dispute arose after a woman visited the restaurant with her friends for dinner on May 16, 2026, and was required to pay ₹4,811, including an additional 10% service charge.
The commission ordered the restaurant to pay ₹20,000 for mental harassment, pain, agony and financial loss, along with ₹11,000 towards litigation expenses. Including the refund, the total amount payable comes to ₹31,401.
FCRF’s Chief AI Officer Certification Returns on November 14 to Prepare Future AI Leaders
Woman Challenges ₹401 Charge After Restaurant Refuses Removal
According to the complaint, the woman visited the restaurant in Gurugram for dinner with her friends on May 16.
When she received the bill, she noticed that the establishment had added ₹401 as a service charge, calculated at 10% of the bill amount.
She objected to the additional payment and requested that the charge be removed.
However, the restaurant allegedly refused to revise the bill, leaving her with no option but to pay the full amount of ₹4,811.
The woman subsequently approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, alleging that the restaurant had violated consumer protection guidelines by imposing a service charge without her consent.
She argued that the additional payment should have remained voluntary and that the establishment had no authority to compel her to pay it.
Despite receiving notice from the commission, the restaurant did not appear to contest the complaint.
The commission consequently proceeded with the matter ex parte, examining the complainant’s submissions and the applicable consumer protection guidelines.
Commission Finds Violation of CCPA Service Charge Guidelines
While deciding the complaint, the commission referred to the guidelines issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on July 4, 2022.
The guidelines prohibit hotels and restaurants from automatically adding service charges to food bills or collecting such amounts by default.
They also specify that establishments cannot impose the charge under another name or make its payment compulsory.
The commission noted that customers must remain free to decide whether they wish to pay a service charge.
In the present case, the restaurant had included the additional amount in the bill and allegedly refused to remove it despite the customer’s express objection.
The commission held that the restaurant’s conduct violated the CCPA guidelines and constituted an unfair trade practice.
It also found deficiency in service, observing that the customer had been compelled to pay an amount that should have remained optional.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between the price charged for food and beverages and a voluntary service charge that customers may choose to pay.
Restaurant Directed to Pay ₹31,401 Including Compensation and Costs
After examining the complaint, the commission directed the restaurant to refund the disputed service charge of ₹401.
It also awarded ₹20,000 to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment, pain, agony and financial loss arising from the restaurant’s conduct.
An additional ₹11,000 was granted towards litigation expenses incurred in pursuing the complaint.
The total amount payable by the restaurant was therefore fixed at ₹31,401.
The order highlights the consequences establishments may face for collecting mandatory service charges despite objections from customers.
Under the CCPA guidelines, restaurants cannot automatically impose service charges or require customers to pay them as a condition of receiving service.
The commission’s decision also underscores that consumers can challenge such charges through the consumer dispute redressal mechanism when establishments refuse to remove them.
The case began with a disputed payment of ₹401 but resulted in a substantially larger financial liability after the commission found the restaurant responsible for an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
