Maharashtra State Commission Admits Dentist’s Appeal For Higher Compensation In Thangabali Service Charge Case

The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has admitted an appeal filed by Dr. Ridhina Nagwekar, a Prabhadevi-based dentist, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Commission in a case against Mahim-based restaurant Thangabali. The district commission had earlier penalised the restaurant for illegally levying a service charge on her bill, but awarded what the complainant calls “a meagre compensation” for mental agony and litigation costs.

Grounds for Appeal

The district commission, in its order dated August 6, 2024, directed Thangabali to refund the Rs 75 service charge collected from Dr. Nagwekar during her visit on January 30, 2021, Rs 2,000 for mental agony, and Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs.

Advocate’s Submission

Dissatisfied with this award, Dr. Nagwekar approached the State Commission through her advocate, Prashant Nayak, arguing that the compensation is grossly inadequate given the prolonged legal battle and hardships faced over three years. The appeal also highlights that the district commission failed to consider the significant litigation expenses, repeated court appearances, and the mental harassment suffered during the course of the case.

Deterrent Effect Needed

The appeal memorandum states, “The district commission ignored the fact that the complainant fought the case for over three years—from January 31, 2021, until August 6, 2024. The compensation of Rs 2,000 for mental agony and Rs 3,000 towards litigation is disproportionate to the time, effort, and costs involved. The commission did not account for the deterrent effect needed to prevent elite, profitable establishments like Thangabali from continuing unfair trade practices. Awarding a meagre compensation could discourage genuine litigants from pursuing justice and embolden violators.”

Dr. Nagwekar’s appeal seeks to quash and set aside the impugned order only to the extent of the quantum of compensation, and requests the State Commission to enhance the compensation to a reasonable amount considering the hardships faced, legal costs incurred, and mental agony suffered.

Restaurant’s Service Charge Practice

The case originated in 2021 when Dr. Nagwekar visited Thangabali restaurant on Kataria Marg and was billed Rs 1,393, which included an additional Rs 75 as “service charge.” Upon objecting, she was informed by the manager that the amount was mandatory, despite clear directives from courts and consumer authorities that service charges are voluntary.  

Complaint and Legal Notice

Following the restaurant’s refusal to refund the amount or respond to a legal notice, Dr. Nagwekar filed a consumer complaint in 2022. The district commission, after reviewing evidence, held the restaurant guilty of unfair trade practice, stating: “The inclusion of a compulsory service charge despite repeated court orders to desist reflects a clear deficiency in service. Displaying such charges on the menu card also constitutes unfair trade practice.”

Next Steps

The State Commission has admitted the appeal and scheduled it for further hearing.