Mumbai: Woman Appeals For Higher Compensation After Winning Case Against Mahim’s Thangabali Restaurant For Unlawful Service Charge

Three months after the Central Mumbai District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ruled against Mahim’s South Indian restaurant, Thangabali, for unlawfully imposing a service charge, the complainant has filed an appeal, arguing that the awarded compensation is insufficient.

Dr. Ridhina Nagwekar, a 34-year-old dentist from Prabhadevi, lodged her appeal with the State Commission, challenging the judgment that awarded her Rs 2,000 for mental agony and Rs 3,000 for litigation expenses. She argued that the Rs 3,000 for litigation costs fell far short of covering the expenses she incurred during three years of pursuing the case. Nagwekar’s appeal seeks a “reasonable” increase in the compensation amount.

The dispute began when Nagwekar dined at Thangabali on January 30, 2021, and received a bill of Rs 1,393, which included a Rs 75 service charge. She challenged the charge as optional, yet the manager insisted on payment. Subsequently, she issued a legal notice to the restaurant, claiming the mandatory service charge constituted an unfair trade practice. When her notice went unanswered, she filed a complaint in 2022 with the consumer commission.

In its defense, the restaurant had then argued that the service charge was not mandatory and had blamed Nagwekar of fabricating the claim to tarnish its reputation.

However, after reviewing evidence, the commission found Thangabali guilty of adding service charges despite judicial directives against compulsory service fees. It ordered the restaurant to refund the Rs 75 with 6% interest, compensating her with Rs 2,000 for mental suffering and Rs 3,000 for litigation costs.

Nagwekar’s lawyer, Advocate Prashant Nayak, praised the commission for recognizing the wrongdoing but criticised the modest compensation, noting that “such meager compensation will discourage genuine litigants” and enable businesses to persist in unfair trade practices. Nayak emphasized that compensations should have a deterrent impact and should sufficiently cover complainants’ hardships and expenses.