Delhi: Caterer fined for not making food for a wedding as ordered
The forum awarded the bride's father BS Bansal Rs 30,000 towards loss of prestige and wastage of ingredients supplied for preparing the food.
New Delhi: A city-based caterer has been directed by a consumer forum to pay Rs 30,000 as compensation to one of his customers for not preparing food for a wedding according to the menu and wasting the ingredients provided. The North East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said the reputation of the bride's family, who made the arrangements, suffered a severe dent and an everlasting curse due to the deficiency in service of Delhi-based caterer Ashok Kumar 'halwai'.
"There is not a scintilla of doubt that respondent (Ashok Kumar Halwai) was deficient in providing services to the complainant but not in entirety as claimed by complainant. Further, the respondent has also not refuted the allegation that some of the raw materials for certain cuisines had not even been touched and thus lay waste. We are of the view that the reputation of the family of the complainant has suffered a severe dent. The marriage of the daughter of complainant has drawn into an unforgettable and everlasting curse... Deficiency in service on the part of the respondent has besmirched complainant's reputation," the bench presided by NA Zaidi said.
The forum awarded the bride's father BS Bansal Rs 30,000 towards loss of prestige and wastage of ingredients supplied for preparing the food. Bansal, in his complaint, said Ashok was hired to make food for nearly 1,200 guests who were invited to the wedding and was provided all the raw materials he had asked for.
However, the caterer had arrived late at the venue, not prepared the food as per the menu supplied to him, and even the quantity was meagre, Bansal had alleged. The caterer, in his defence, had contended that delay was due to last minute change in venue and food quantity fell short because about 1,800-2,000 guests had arrived instead of 1,200 as he was told.
The forum rejected the contention saying there was no change in location and no proof was submitted regarding number of guests at the wedding.