The Puducherry District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held a popular restaurant on M.G Road, Puducherry, liable for deficiency in service after it served biriyani containing a dead insect, which appears to be a fly, to two persons. Consequently, the district consumer commission directed the restaurant to pay the complainant Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 3,000 towards litigation expenses. It also ordered restaurant to provide him two plates of freshly prepared biriyani free of cost every Sundays for five consecutive weeks (total 10 plates of free biriyani).The complainant provided both photo and video evidence showing a dead insect, which appears to be a fly, found in the biriyani served to them; even the restaurant acknowledged this in the Google reviews, stating that it was an isolated incident. Although the photo was grainy, the video was of reasonably clear quality and clearly showed the dead fly in the biryani served to them, which made his case stronger.The big biriyani blunderThis unfortunate incident happened on December 8, 2025, with 26-year-old Manikandan from Lawspet, Puducherry, when he went with a friend to a popular restaurant on M.G. Road to eat biriyani. He ordered a Hyderabadi Red Chicken Biriyani (Single) priced at Rs 259 and Hyderabadi Chicken Joint Biriyani (Single) priced at Rs 299, aggregating to a total sum of Rs 558.While eating biriyani, Manikandan shockingly discovered a dead insect inside the food served. The presence of a dead insect clearly indicates that the food was prepared and served in an unhygienic and unsafe manner, posing a serious threat to the consumer's health and safety. Manikandan immediately recorded photographic and video evidence of the contaminated food, which clearly shows the dead insect (appearing to be a fly) inside the biriyani.Subsequently, Manikandan filed a consumer case (COMPLAINT CASE No. 15/2026) with the Puducherry district consumer commission on December 26, 2025. The district consumer commission passed an order in his favour on April 30, 2026. He represented himself and took no assistance from any lawyer.Puducherry district consumer commission order and discussionThe district consumer commission said that it is a well-settled principle that food service establishments are under a statutory as well as moral obligation to maintain strict standards of hygiene and cleanliness. The district consumer commission said that in India, such establishments are governed by the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. They must comply with the standards prescribed under Schedule 4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, which require proper sanitation, hygienic food handling, and maintenance of clean premises. The district consumer commission cited a related judgement, which held that presence of insect in the food perse constitutes deficiency in service. Case law cited: Vikas Mittal Vs. Mosoof Ahamed,2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 278, decided on May 4, 2016The district consumer commission said that the video recording provided by Manikandan clearly establishes that food is unsafe and unfit for consumption, reflecting gross negligence in maintaining hygienic conditions.The district consumer commission said that such an act of the Opposite Party (restaurant) not only violates the consumer's right to safe and quality food but also squarely falls within the ambit of "deficiency in service" as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The district consumer commission also observed that despite receiving legal notice, the restaurant chose not to attend the hearings. However, they acknowledged the notice and replied through their lawyer, firmly denying the occurrence of any such incident and claiming that the complaint was false and baseless. However, the consumer commission found out a photocopy of the Google Review posted by the Complainant (Mr Manikandan) on the restaurant's web page, which revealed that the establishment had, in fact, acknowledged the incident, tendered an apology, and stated that it was an isolated occurrence, while assuring that corrective measures would be implemented to prevent future occurrences. The consumer commission said: "The contradictory stand taken by the Opposite Party (restaurant) denying the incident in the reply notice while admitting and apologizing for the same in the public domain as evidenced by Google Review clearly demonstrates inconsistency and undermines their credibility. Such conduct reflects a casual and indifferent attitude towards consumer grievances."While concluding the hearings, the district consumer commission said that the Complainant (Mr Manikandan) has alleged adoption of an unfair trade practice on the part of the restaurant, but no cogent or credible evidence has been adduced to substantiate the said allegation. Thus, the district consumer commission said that it is a well-settled proposition of law that an allegation of unfair trade practice must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved by placing adequate material on record. In the absence of such proof, a mere bald assertion cannot be accepted, and the said contention is liable to be rejected. Compensation order:The district consumer commission said that though a dead insect, appearing to be a fly, in the food served to him was discovered and, by its very nature, is capable of causing not only immediate disgust and mental shock but also a reasonable apprehension of health risks at the same time, there is no material on record to show that he has suffered any actual physical injury, illness, or long-term medical consequences as a result of the said incident. Therefore, the district consumer commission said that while compensation for mental agony and inconvenience is certainly warranted, the same must be reasonable and proportionate. Order:In view of the above discussions, the district consumer commission directed the restaurant to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to the Complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service, and also for the mental agony, physical hardships, and other sufferings sustained by him andAn amount of Rs 3,000 towards litigation expenses, which shall be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party (restaurant) is further directed, as a measure of goodwill, to provide the Complainant with 10 (ten) plates of Hyderabadi Chicken Biriyani, which shall be freshly prepared and served in compliance with the hygienic and safety standards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the relevant regulations, calculating two plates per week for five consecutive Sundays free of cost, commencing within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Opposite Party shall comply with the order passed herewith by paying the amount mentioned within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till full payment.