Delhi restaurant forces customer to pay ₹949 service charge: Consumer panel orders refund with interest
The order came on a complaint filed by Neeraj Dubey, who claimed he and his family were prevented from leaving the restaurant until they paid the disputed service charge
- Jul 22, 2026,
- Updated Jul 22, 2026 12:35 PM IST
A Delhi consumer commission has ruled against the exclusive restaurant House of BOHO after a customer alleged he was forced to pay a service charge despite objecting to it. Holding the restaurant guilty of unfair trade practice, the South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered it to refund the service charge with interest and compensation for harassment.
The order came on a complaint filed by Neeraj Dubey, who claimed he and his family were prevented from leaving the restaurant until they paid the disputed service charge.
READ THIS: Paid for premium seat, forced into middle row: IndiGo ordered to pay ₹55,000 to 80-year-old woman
Commission remarks
The case was heard by South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal. In its order, the commission observed that the collection of service charges under different descriptions was misleading and amounted to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
"The collection of service charge and use of different terminologies for the said charge is misleading and deceptive in nature. The same constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019," the commission said. The commission relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment upholding the validity of the Central Consumer Protection Authority's (CCPA) guidelines on service charges.
What triggered the dispute?
According to the complaint, Dubey and his family dined at House of BOHO on October 19, 2024. Their bill amounted to ₹ 11,761, which included a ₹ 949 service charge.
Dubey objected to the charge and requested that it be removed, citing the CCPA guidelines, which state that service charges are voluntary and cannot be imposed on consumers.
Customer forced to pay
Dubey alleged that after he refused to pay the service charge, restaurant staff surrounded his table, threatened him and his family, and warned that they would not be allowed to leave unless the full bill, including the service charge, was paid.
The restaurant did not contest the case
Despite being served notice, House of BOHO did not appear before the commission. As a result, the consumer forum initiated ex parte proceedings on April 8, 2025, and decided the matter based on the complainant's evidence and written submissions.
ALSO READ: Air India's 2-hour cancellation cost it ₹96,000. What this ruling means for every flyer
Commission orders refund
Relying on the CCPA guidelines and the Delhi High Court's ruling, the commission directed House of BOHO to:
- Refund the ₹ 949 collected as service charge.
- Pay 7% annual interest on the refunded amount from the date of payment until its realisation.
- Pay ₹ 25,000 as compensation for the harassment caused by indulging in an unfair trade practice.
The commission further directed that the entire amount be paid within three months from the date of the order. If the restaurant fails to comply within the stipulated period, it will be liable to pay 6% annual interest on the entire awarded amount until the payment is realised.
A Delhi consumer commission has ruled against the exclusive restaurant House of BOHO after a customer alleged he was forced to pay a service charge despite objecting to it. Holding the restaurant guilty of unfair trade practice, the South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered it to refund the service charge with interest and compensation for harassment.
The order came on a complaint filed by Neeraj Dubey, who claimed he and his family were prevented from leaving the restaurant until they paid the disputed service charge.
READ THIS: Paid for premium seat, forced into middle row: IndiGo ordered to pay ₹55,000 to 80-year-old woman
Commission remarks
The case was heard by South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal. In its order, the commission observed that the collection of service charges under different descriptions was misleading and amounted to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
"The collection of service charge and use of different terminologies for the said charge is misleading and deceptive in nature. The same constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019," the commission said. The commission relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment upholding the validity of the Central Consumer Protection Authority's (CCPA) guidelines on service charges.
What triggered the dispute?
According to the complaint, Dubey and his family dined at House of BOHO on October 19, 2024. Their bill amounted to ₹ 11,761, which included a ₹ 949 service charge.
Dubey objected to the charge and requested that it be removed, citing the CCPA guidelines, which state that service charges are voluntary and cannot be imposed on consumers.
Customer forced to pay
Dubey alleged that after he refused to pay the service charge, restaurant staff surrounded his table, threatened him and his family, and warned that they would not be allowed to leave unless the full bill, including the service charge, was paid.
The restaurant did not contest the case
Despite being served notice, House of BOHO did not appear before the commission. As a result, the consumer forum initiated ex parte proceedings on April 8, 2025, and decided the matter based on the complainant's evidence and written submissions.
ALSO READ: Air India's 2-hour cancellation cost it ₹96,000. What this ruling means for every flyer
Commission orders refund
Relying on the CCPA guidelines and the Delhi High Court's ruling, the commission directed House of BOHO to:
- Refund the ₹ 949 collected as service charge.
- Pay 7% annual interest on the refunded amount from the date of payment until its realisation.
- Pay ₹ 25,000 as compensation for the harassment caused by indulging in an unfair trade practice.
The commission further directed that the entire amount be paid within three months from the date of the order. If the restaurant fails to comply within the stipulated period, it will be liable to pay 6% annual interest on the entire awarded amount until the payment is realised.