Bengaluru customer objected to Rs 128 service charge at pub, was told it was mandatory; consumer court orders refund with Rs 3,000 compensation

AI generated image used for representative purpose

NEW DELHI: A Bengaluru pub customer who repeatedly objected to a 7.5 percent service charge but was allegedly told he would not be served unless he paid it has been awarded a refund and compensation by a consumer commission.A Bangalore district consumer commission directed Sherlock’s Pub Nagarabhavi to refund the Rs 128 service charge collected from the complainant. It also awarded Rs 2,000 as compensation for damages and mental agony and Rs 1,000 towards litigation costs.Why did the pub charge a 7.5 percent service charge?According to the complaint, Rudresh visited the pub with a friend on March 24, 2026, to have food and dine there. He alleged that he noticed the service charge mentioned in the menu and told the pub staff that it could not be imposed compulsorily.The complaint then claimed that the manager told him that a 7.5 percent service charge would be added to the final bill.Rudresh then pointed out the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) guidelines concerning service charges at hotels and restaurants. He claimed the manager still maintained that the charge was mandatory and would not be removed.According to his complaint, he was told that the pub would not provide dining services unless he agreed to pay the charge. He therefore settled a bill of Rs 1,887, which included the disputed Rs 128 service charge.Rudresh later sent a legal notice to the pub on April 10 seeking a refund and compensation. The commission noted that the pub neither replied to the notice nor complied with his demands.The pub also did not appear before the consumer commission after being served with notice of the complaint and was placed ex parte.What did the commission say about service charges?The bench of President V Anuradha and member H Janardhan examined the documents filed by Rudresh, including the bill, payment receipt, legal notice and postal records. It noted that he had specifically informed the pub about the CCPA guidelines but the service charge was still imposed as a mandatory payment.The commission said the CCPA guidelines require hotels and restaurants not to force consumers to pay a service charge and to make clear that it is voluntary and depends on the consumer’s choice.Referring to the Delhi high court’s observations on service charges, the commission said that “service charge or TIP as is colloquially referred is a voluntary payment by the customer. It cannot be compulsory or mandatory.”The commission then explained why making such a charge compulsory could affect consumer rights:“The practice undertaken by the restaurant establishments of collecting service charge that too on a mandatory basis, in a coercive manner, would be contrary to the consumer interest and is violative of consumer rights.”The commission also referred to the argument that a customer’s entry into a restaurant and subsequent order for food could amount to consent to a mandatory service charge, but noted that such a condition had been held to be onerous and unfair.In the Bengaluru case, the commission found that the pub’s conduct was not merely an accidental billing error. It noted that the customer had objected to the charge, brought the CCPA guidelines to the staff’s attention and was still told that the charge was mandatory.The commission said the pub appeared to be following a management policy of imposing the service charge regardless of the customer’s choice. It concluded:“Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party shall follow the CCPA Rules, but here the Opposite Party’s behavior with the consumer is adamant in nature which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party,” the bench concluded.The commission further noted that the pub did not appear before it despite being served notice. It said the complainant’s documentary evidence remained unchallenged and that the pub had not shown why there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.Commission final order: