PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 179/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Prateek Mahapatra

S/O-Pramod Chandra Mahapatra,

R/O-Putibandh, Dhanupali, PO/Ps-Dhanupali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768005, Odisha.                        ….…......Complainant.

                                    -Vrs.-  

1. The RNS FOOD, Sambalpur

Farm Road, Sambalpur-768003.

GST No. 21AWQPM1028E1ZW

2. The Manager, EYLEX, Sambalpur

City Centre mall (Before BIG BAZAR, Sambalpur),

Near Sanjivani Hospital,  

Farm Road, Sambalpur-768003.                         …………........Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P.s                       :- Sri. S. Tibrewal & Associates

Date of Filing:16.10.2023,Date of Hearing :06.02.2023,Date of Judgement : 02.04.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 15.10.2023 the Complainant went for a movie ‘MIND GAME’ in Eyelex Cineplex 1 P.M. show. In the interval the Complainant placed order for a pack of snacks from O.P. no.1 ‘SAMOSA’ and the cost was Rs. 100/- for four ‘Samosas’. The size of the samosa was small as compared to the sale price. The price was excessive. It gave pain to the Complainant. Being aggrieved complaint was filed.
2. The O.P. No.1 after appearance submitted that the Complainant has not filed any document that he is a consumer of the answering O.P. The prices charged by the O.P. is not at all higher. There is no maximum retail price has been prescribed by govt. for samosas. The Complainant relied on the price charged by other vendors which is not acceptable. The Price of same samosa is Rs. 50/- in Air ports. There is no straight jacket formulae for determining the price of samosa.

Multiplex is an expensive affair for maintenance. The O.P. No.1 maintains the highest standard of hygiene and also serves the same at the seat of the customer which is a service. The market, quality and the service offered, taking into consideration the price is justifiable. There is no unfair trade practice. The answering OP cited K.C. Cinema Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & others 2023 SCC online SC 22. There is no compulsion for the Complainant to see movie and purchase food items. The case is devoid of any merit.

3. The O.P. No.2 cineplex in reply submitted that there is no any specific allegation against the O.P. No.2. The O.P. no.2 is no way concerned with functioning of O.P. No.1. The O.P. no.2 has taken the cinema hall/multiplex on rental basis like O.P. no.1. The O.P. No.2 has taken the total stand taken by O.P. no.1. The relief prayed by the Complainant is devoid of any merit.
4. The Complainant has filed the money receipt dated 15.10.2023 token No. 51. The tender amount is Rs. 530/- and of Samosa for four pieces including taxes has been shown Rs. 95.24 P. The Complainant has also filed the cinema ticket. Money receipt No. 815 issued by Shakti Misthan Bhandar dated 15.10.2023 wherein 4 samosas cost RS. 40/-. Photographs of four samosas of O.P. no.1 and samosa of Shakti Misthan Bhandar has been filed.
5. After perusal of the contentions of the parties it reveals that the Complainant had been to the Cineplex to see the movie on 15.10.2023 and during interval of the movie had been to O.P. no.1 to take some snacks and the O.P. no.1 offered seat, served the samosa (4 Nos) with other materials and after receiving Rs. 130/- granted a receipt wherein the price of 4 samosas has been reflected Rs. 95.24P including taxes. The O.P. No.2 in its version submitted that there is no any specific allegation against the O.P. No.2. The allegation of the Complainant is that excess pricing on 4 samosas.

The O.P. No.1 filed food licence No. 12019037000043 issued by chief District Medical Officer, Sambalpur Muncipal Corporation. The O.P. no.1 also filed rate chart of different food materials and specifically samosa (4 pcs) Rs. 100/-.

The photographs filed by the O.P. no.1 and the photographs filed by the Complainant are same and there is every reason to believe that price list has been shown by O.P. no.1 and the Complainant after satisfied with the price purchased the food materials. The O.P. No.1 submitted a brochure and mentioned how safe foods are provided to the customers. Keeping in view the health and hygiene food materials are sold. The Complainant has voluntarily, purchased the samosas which price is displayed prominently in the food counter. There is no any unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. no.1 when the price list has been displayed and the Complainant voluntarily purchased the food materials.

Comparison with other shops can not be made as different standards are maintained by different vendors and there is no any law relating to fixation of prices in Cineplex. It is provided with “Services” for entertainment and accordingly it can not be held that the O.P. no.1 has charged excess prices from the Complainant.

6. The only point of consideration in this complaint can be made that whether safety and food standard has been maintained by the O.P. No.1 or not. The O.P. No.1 charging excess price than normal vendors as they are maintaining food standard and services. From the photographs filed by Complainant it reveals that while selling food items the sales boys/sales girls are not used globes in their hands, which prove the standard maintained by the O.P. No.1

Sale of food items without globes, it amounts to deficiency in service and is a violation of sec 27(3)(b) of the food safety and standards Act, 2006 and accordingly it is ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed against the O.P. No.1 and dismissed against O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 has not maintained secured food services and accordingly deficient in its service, The O.P. no.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in the 2^nd day of April of 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.