Read the judgment copy:Rudresh RS vs Sherlocks Pub
Case Name: Sri Rudresh R.S. v. M/s Sherlock’s Pub Nagarabhavi by CVS LLP
Case Number: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.144/2026
Date: Friday, 25th September, 2026
Court: Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Quorum: Smt. V. Anuradha (I/C President) and Sri H. Janardhan (Member)
FACTS
On March 24, 2026, the complainant visited the Opposite Party (O.P.) hotel for food. The complainant raised his objection to the service charge of 7.5% levied on his bill and told the staff that the same was optional. However, the management of the O.P. maintained its stance that the charge was mandatory and refused to serve food unless it was paid for their services, rejecting the various requests to exempt the charge from the bill amounting to Rs. 1,887. As a result, on April 10, 2026, the complainant sent a legal notice and formally paid the Rs. 128 service charge under protest. The O.P. did not respond to the legal notice and did not participate in the proceedings of the Commission.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Did the complainant demonstrate a shortage of service by the Opposite Party?
- Does it amount to an unfair trade practice that a restaurant requires mandatory payment of a service charge?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- The Consumer Protection Act of 2019, Section 35.
- Guidelines from the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) forbid lodging facilities and dining establishments from requiring customers to pay service fees.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER – The complainant has claimed that the fixed rate of 7.5% service charge violates the regulations of CCPA, which clearly states that the charge is to be purely optional. The complainant supported his argument by referring to the case of National Restaurant Association of India & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. in the Delhi High Court, where the court held that aggressive collection of service charges is an unlawful trade practice. The complainant demanded refund of the charge along with compensation for suffering and legal expenses incurred by him.
RESPONDENT – The Opposite Party was adjudged ex parte as it failed to appear before the Commission. The failure to contest the complaint amounts to an implied acceptance of the complainant’s undenied contentions and documentary evidence.
ANALYSIS
The Commission observed that the OP was guilty of the blatant violation of the CCPA rules, which clearly stipulate that the application of service charges must be voluntary and known as such. The Commission pointed to the OP’s obstinate and arrogant behaviour in insisting on the imposition of the charge even when it had been apprised of the applicable rules, thus indicating a clear deficiency of service. By quoting from an earlier ruling of the Delhi High Court, the Commission stated that the mere entry of a customer into a restaurant does not amount to giving implicit consent for service charges. Concluding its judgment, the Commission noted that the actions of the OP could not be construed as an error on its bill, but rather as application of an unfair trade practice through the use of a policy of imposition of service charges. The absence of a representative of the OP during the proceedings amounted to an admission of the complaint by the complainant.
JUDGEMENT
The Commission found merit in the consumer complaint. Starting on March 24, 2026, and continuing until the refund is given at a rate of 8% yearly, the OP was directed to reimburse the Rs. 128 service charge plus interest that accrued on it. Additionally, the OP was required to reimburse the customer for Rs. 1,000 in litigation expenses and Rs. 2,000 in damages for mental suffering. The OP was allowed a period of 45 days to comply with the order, after which time the principal amount refund would attract a penalty of 10% interest per annum.
CONCLUSION
This verdict strengthens the authority of CCPA regulations, confirming that service charges in the hospitality industry cannot be made compulsory under the pretext of management policy. The Commission, by punishing the restaurant for its coercive billing practices, successfully safeguarded the consumers rights from arbitrary and unfair practices.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SWETHA DUTTA
- Nat’l Restaurant Ass’n of India v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 10683/2022 (Del. Mar. 28, 2025) (India).
