Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Telangana High Court, emphasising the validity and seriousness of consumer complaints raised on social media platforms, has ruled that grievances made on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) are an accepted mode of registering complaints and can be equated to formal written complaints.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, observed: “The complaints on social media cannot be seen as lacking in gravity as opposed to formal written complaints. Complaints/customer feedback on social media is an accepted mode of registering complaints against a service provider and the petitioner cannot adopt an ostrich policy in today’s time on the pretext that social media complaints do not deserve to be treated with seriousness.”

The court’s observation came while hearing a petition filed by a catering stall operator at Secunderabad Railway Station, challenging the termination of his license by South Central Railway. The petitioner’s license was revoked on November 7, 2024, citing repeated customer complaints, including social media posts alleging poor food quality and overcharging.

The petitioner argued that the termination violated the “Penalties” section of the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC), which mandated counselling and written warnings before any punitive action. The petitioner also contended that the Railway acted prematurely based on a social media complaint without following proper procedures.

The respondent Railway, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Gadi Praveen Kumar and Advocate N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, countered with evidence of multiple warnings and penalties issued to the petitioner. These included reports of substandard food quality, overpricing, and incidents of violence involving the petitioner’s employees.

The court noted that the Railway gave several opportunities to the petitioner to mend its ways before issuing the notice of termination and adhered to the sequential penalty structure outlined in the SCC. Upholding the termination order, the court stated, “The impugned action of termination was taken only after the petitioner failed to stop the continued deficiency in service.”

The court also highlighted that complaints raised on social media could not be ignored, as they were serious in nature and reflected legitimate grievances about food quality, pricing, and vendor behaviour. “The complaints are indeed serious in nature since they not only relate to poor quality of food but also food below the recommended weight and in excess of the prescribed rate,” the court said.

The court further observed that the petitioner’s employees were involved in violent incidents, further aggravating the situation.

Conclusively, the court, finding no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, stated: “The opportunities given to the petitioner to rectify the situation also took care of the requirement9 of following the principles of natural justice in terms of giving notice of the impugned action.” As a result, the petition was dismissed.

 

Cause Title: M:S Mathura Prasad And Sons v The Union Of India [WP No.34055 OF 2024]

Appearance: Advocate Aadesh Varma for the petitioner; and Deputy Solicitor General Gadi Praveen Kumar and Advocate NVR Rajya Lakshmi appeared for the respondents.