17 June,2026 05:47 PM IST | Pune | mid-day online correspondent
Every restaurant is entitled to regulate the use of its premises and prescribe reasonable conditions governing its services, said the consumer commission. Representational pic
Refusing permission to eat home-cooked food at eateries cannot be construed as a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, said the consumer commission while dismissing a complaint against a Pune restaurant, noting it is a matter of policy discretion rather than a legal obligation, news agency PTI reported.
The commission also ruled that charging an amount higher than the printed MRP for bottled water served on the premises of eateries does not, by itself, constitute any illegality, deficiency in service, or unfair trade practice, as such establishments provide a composite package of services.
The commission underlined that hotels and restaurants do not merely sell commodities but provide a composite package of services, including seating arrangements, table service, ambience, maintenance of the 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," District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional DCF, Mumbai Suburban) stated in a ruling passed earlier this month.
The courts have recognised that charges recovered by such establishments include the service component and cannot be equated with ordinary retail transactions, the commission stated.
The complainant claimed that, though her mother-in-law was suffering from a serious ailment and was medically advised to eat only home-cooked food, the restaurant in Pune refused to let them eat home food on the premises, forced them to purchase from the facility, and also charged Rs 30 for a packaged drinking water bottle with an MRP of Rs 20.
Rejecting the medical claims, the commission noted that the complainant submitted a pathology report, containing only laboratory findings which lacked any specific medical diagnosis, doctor's prescription, or official dietary advice prohibiting restaurant food.
"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," the commission said.
Even otherwise, every restaurant is entitled to regulate the use of its premises and prescribe reasonable conditions governing its services, it said, noting that "refusal to permit outside food, by itself, cannot be construed as a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice".
The complainant's contention that she was compelled to order food from the restaurant also "does not merit acceptance".
"Once the opposite party (restaurant) declined permission to consume outside food in accordance with its policy, it was open to the complainant either to avail of the services offered by the restaurant or not to avail. The expenditure incurred towards food purchased from the restaurant cannot be attributed to any deficiency in service on the part of the establishment," it ruled.
(With PTI inputs)
