BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.913/2010 against C.C.No.756/2009, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.
Between:
Pramod Sanghi
S/o.Sri Rajendra Sanghi, age 26 years,
Occ:Professional Artist, R/o.501-A,
Major Residency, Masab Tank,
Hyderabad-500 028. Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. Chutneys Coffee House
Opp:Hindu Shamshan Ghat
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034
Rep. by its Manager.
2. M/s.Aradhana Foods & Juices (P) Ltd.,
Pothireddypally Village Sangareddy (M)
Medak District-502 295, A.P.
3. The Managing Director,
M/s.Aradhana Foods & Juices (P) Ltd.,
Pothireddypally Village Sangareddy (M)
Medak District-502 295, A.P. Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.V.K.Sanghi
Counsel for the Respondents : Notice of R1 held sufficient.
R2 and R3 served.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
( Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha Hon’ble Member )
*****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.756/2009 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased mineral water for which opposite party No.1 charged Rs.25/- when the actual price is Rs.14/- only. It is the case of the complainant that the mineral water consumed by him in the opposite party’s restaurant was manufactured by opposite parties 2 and 3 and the bottle does not reflect the maximum retail price and thereby opposite parties 2 and 3 violated the packaging rules prescribed under the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1977 and hence the opposite parties are liable for unfair trade practice in charging more price than the MRP and also for selling the bottles without printing MRP on the bottles. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.11/- charged more than the MRP., pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- for marketing without printing MRP and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and contended that they are in the business of catering food to the customers in a congenial atmosphere by providing air conditioners, music and prompt service by their staff and that the provisions relating to MRP does not apply to them as they are not retailers. Opposite party No.1 further contended that the cost of items are clearly printed in the menu card and the customers who normally refer to the menu card and so there is no violation of packaging rules and submitted that they are entitled to charge more as they are not only selling the products but also rendering service to the customers and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite parties 2 and 3 did not choose to appear before the District Forum and were set exparte.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A4, MO1 and MO2 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the appellant/complainant purchased a bottle of mineral water in opposite party No.1 restaurant on 28-8-2009 evidenced under Ex.A1 bill. This bill shows that along with other savories, he also purchased a mineral water bottle which was billed at Rs.25/-. The appellant/complainant filed Ex.A4, before the District Forum which is the translation of the report in daily Hindi Milad Newspaper which refers to the hotels charging high rates for water bottles.
The respondent/opposite party No.1 contends that the customers pay not just for the water bottle but also for the environment and the service and that the price is clearly printed on the menu card which the customer should see before ordering the food items. The provisions relating to MRP would not apply to the restaurants operated by this opposite party since there is no sale of bottled mineral water but only a service of serving mineral water to the customers. Therefore, there is no violation of packaging rules prescribed under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976.
We observe from the record that this contention is not substantiated by any documentary evidence as the opposite party did not choose to file the relevant rules of the Weights and Measures Act on which he is relying. As per the Legal Metrology Department, independent eateries are not authorized to charge anything above the MRP i.e. printed on the product. We observe from the product that has been shown to us that the MRP is indeed printed on the bottle. The complainant filed a newspaper report that big hotels and restaurants are charging exorbitant rates from the consumers for packed water bottles and other food products, in a written reply to the question of S.K.Kharventhan, the State Minister for Consumer Affairs, Tasleemuddin mentioned in the Lok sabha that ‘these are reports of some incidents’. Opposite party No.1 also did not file any evidence or material of this ‘dual pricing policy’ to show that they are entitled to charge more than the MRP. The Menu card has also not been filed.
Thus, the question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, charging of excess amount to the tune of Rs.11/- per bottle of mineral water amounted to unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(1)(r)(ix) of the Act of 1986 and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, as held by the learned District Forum or not.
It is well settled proposition of law that matters relating to pricing may be adjudicated by Consumer Fora in cases where price is fixed by law or there is a deliberate or intentional act on the part of the seller of goods to take advantage of a higher price of the goods or there is a price dispute due to unfair trade price as per Section 2(1)(r)(ix) of the Act of 1986.
In Standard Automobiles v. Dr. Syed Ashraf, II (1991) CPJ 626 (Kerala) where price of the ignition coil was Rs. 75 inclusive of all taxes, but appellants of that case had sold the coil for Rs. 88 and, thus, charging of excess amount was found to be unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants of that case.
In Eko Electronics & Ors. v. Saira Mehta, II (1999) CPJ 599 (Punjab), it was held that over charging of T.V. price amounts to unfair trade practice.
In R.L. Aggarwal v. Previous And Present Contractors, Cycle, Scooter Stand & Ors., II (2001) CPJ 19=2001 (1) Con.LT 563, it was held that over-charging of parking fee for parking scooter Rs. 3 instead of 0.50 paisa amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
In this case, the maximum retail price of one bottle of mineral water, as printed on it, was Rs.14, but the same was sold to the complainant-respondent by the appellant at Rs.25/- and, thus, Rs. 11/- per bottle of mineral water was charged more by the appellant from the complainant-respondent and in our considered opinion, that act on the part of the appellant charging more price than fixed on the bottle of mineral water amounted to unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(1)(r)(ix) of the Act of 1986 and deficiency in service and the learned District Forum has rightly held so.
No doubt in the institutions like the appellant, food items are being served and charges for supplying food could be charged by them at any rate because maximum charges on them are not fixed by any law or by the appropriate authorities of the Government. Therefore, if, for food items, they charge prices varying from Hotel to Hotel, the District Fora should not interfere, but since in the present case, the maximum retail price of bottle of mineral water was fixed at Rs. 14 by the appropriate authorities of the Government, whereas the appellant had charged Rs.25/-, therefore, the act of the appellant charging more amount than fixed on the bottle of mineral water, taking advantage of the situation amounted to unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(1)(r)(ix) of the Act of 1986 and is construed as deficiency in service.
We are not inclined to award any compensation since we do not see any fit case where the complainant was subject to any mental agony or immense monetary loss. However, he is entitled to costs of Rs.2,000/-. Hence we are of the considered view that this act amounts to unfair trade practice for which the appellant/complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.11/- which was charged more than the MRP together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing opposite party No.1 to refund of Rs.11/- which was charged more than the MRP together with costs of Rs.2,000/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. This appeal is also dismissed against respondents 2 and 3.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM dt 30-1-2012
