A Yekaterinburg resident lost a lawsuit against "Vkusno — i tochka", which had refused to serve a customer.

      A resident of Yekaterinburg tried to claim compensation from the fast-food restaurant "Vkusno — i tochka" for being refused service and lost in court. The unified press service of the courts of the Sverdlovsk Region reported this on Friday.

      The plaintiff attempted to place an order at the "Vkusno — i tochka" restaurant on Shcherbakova Street in April last year. It was around 3 a.m., the main dining hall was already closed, and the only way to order was the drive-through window, which operates around the clock.

      However, because the customer was on foot, the restaurant staff refused to serve him. According to the establishment's rules, the drive-through window is intended exclusively for customers in vehicles.

      The man regarded this refusal as illegal and a violation of his consumer rights.

      Initially he complained to Rospotrebnadzor and asked that LLC "SPP" be held administratively liable, but his request was denied. The citizen then went to court with an administrative suit seeking a declaration that the inaction of the Rospotrebnadzor office was unlawful. The court denied the administrative claims.

      Unwilling to give up, the customer filed a suit in the Chkalovsky District Court of Yekaterinburg, asking to declare the actions of LLC "SPP" illegal and to recover 15,000 rubles as compensation for moral damage.

      The Chkalovsky District Court of Yekaterinburg denied the plaintiff’s claims. The Yekaterinburg resident appealed the decision to the appellate instance, but was also unsuccessful. The first-instance court's decision entered into legal force.

      The Sverdlovsk Regional Court confirmed that the refusal to serve a pedestrian through a window designed for vehicles was lawful, as its purpose is to prevent threats to people's lives and health, as well as possible property damage.

      The court of first instance, after reviewing the civil case materials, concluded that the service rules at this restaurant were established by the company's internal documents and that the access layouts were coordinated with the traffic police (GIBDD). Serving pedestrians, cyclists, and users of personal mobility devices through this window is prohibited by the company's rules for road safety reasons.

      The court also rejected the plaintiff's arguments of discrimination, noting that the established service procedure is uniform for all consumers and is not selective in nature.