Kerala Consumer forum orders Biriyani outlet to pay Rs 96,500 to woman over contaminated food

A Kerala consumer commission ordered a biryani cafe proprietor and manager to pay Rs 96,500 to a woman who fell ill after consuming food at the eatery. The compensation covers medical expenses, damages and litigation costs following her Salmonella infection

Pathanamthitta: A consumer redressal commission in Keralam has directed the proprietor and manager of a biryani cafe in this district to jointly pay Rs 96,500 to a woman who alleged that she fell ill after consuming food from the eatery.

The Pathanamthitta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the opposite parties — King’s Biriyani Cafe proprietor Ashish John Mathew and its manager in Ranni — to pay Rs 36,500 towards hospital expenses, Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.

---

The amount has to be paid within 30 days.

The complaint was filed by Reena Thomas of Vechoochira, who alleged that she and her sister had visited the cafe at Chethonkara in Ranni on October 21, 2025, and ordered alfaham, an Arabian dish.

According to the complaint, she noticed a difference in the taste soon after they started eating and informed the waiter.

However, the waiter allegedly told them that there was nothing wrong with the food and that it was only their perception.

Thomas said her sister did not eat much of the food and the remaining portion was packed. She paid a bill of Rs 740 through a debit card.

She alleged that she developed vomiting and stomach pain while travelling back home and later suffered dizziness, vomiting and weakness. She received initial treatment at a hospital in Vechoochira but was later admitted to another facility in Kanjirappally as the symptoms persisted.

According to the complaint, she remained in the hospital for a week and was told by doctors that she had developed a Salmonella infection after consuming undercooked or stale food.

Thomas’s son subsequently informed the cafe operators about her condition over the phone. He alleged that they responded rudely and offered to pay Rs 6,000, which was not accepted.

The commission issued notices to both opposite parties. While the proprietor appeared before the commission, the manager, despite receiving the notice, did not appear.

After examining the complainant, the opposite party and the documents produced in the case, the commission held that the allegations against the opposite parties were substantiated. It also relied on the discharge summary from the hospital.

The commission noted that the absence of the second opposite party from the proceedings, despite receiving notice, also supported the complainant’s case.

The order was passed by commission president Babychan Vechoochira and member Nishad Thankappan.