Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/816/2019

Karan Manaktala - Complainant(s)

Versus

A B Resorts Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Rana & Rajkarn Maurya

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/816/2019
Date of Institution	:	08/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	17/10/2022

 

Karan Manaktala, aged about 30 years son of Sh.Prabhu Dayal Manaktala, resident of House No.851, Sector 10, Panchkula (Haryana).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. A B Resorts Pvt. Ltd./Himani Hotels SCO No.469-470, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor/authorized person/Manager.
2. Aquafina P.O Box 27, DLF Qutab Enclave-I, Gurugram-12202, Haryana.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Raj Karn Maurya, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	None for OP No.1.
	:	Complaint against OP No.2 dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2019.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant alongwith friends visited the place of OP No.1 for taking refreshment. As per complaint, the complainant while sitting at place of OP No.1 ordered some eatable, drinkable things including one l liter water bottle. Consequently, the OP No.1 raised two bills i.e., bill No.2402 & 2487 on 07.07.2019 for eatables i.e., crispy chilly potato, mojito and water bottle amounting Rs.625/- including all taxes (Annexure C-1 & C-2). The complainant after going through the above said bill, found that the OP No.1 has charged excess amount of Rs.80/- for water bottle, whereas MRP (Maximum Retail Price) on the water bottle is mentioned as Rs.20/- same has been manufactured/filled by OP No.2. It is the case, complainant, had come to know that in other outlets in the city for the same mineral water bottle, MRP was Rs.20/- only (inclusive of taxes). The complainant made the payment under protest. Alleged, the action of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of the amount of Rs.80/- alongwith compensation and litigation expense.
2.     OP No.1 in its reply has pleaded that the Complainant ordered the foods, Ochilly Potato, Mojito and one bottle of mineral water which were served to him on his table. The price of water bottle and other beverages were as per the menu card of the restaurant. The Complainant was fully aware and satisfied with the price of food and beverages before ordering the same. It has been asserted that when the Complainant raised protest for the bill, he was clarified that the bill was as per menu card and therefore nothing extra amount has been charged.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     The complaint against OP No.2 vide order dated 13.08.2019 was dismissed observing that no any cause of action was there against OP No.2.
4.     Despite awaiting various opportunities to file rejoinder and rebuttal evidence on behalf of complainant, he failed to file the same. Hence opportunity to file rejoinder and rebuttal evidence on behalf of complainant was closed vide order dated 25.02.2022.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and document.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.  
7.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present case is that he was charged Rs.80 for the water bottle on which the MRP was mentioned as Rs.20/-. Hence, the act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.
8.     The stand taken by the OP No.1 is that the bill was as per the menu card and therefore, nothing has been charged extra, hence the complaint needs to be dismissed.
9.     After going through the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the complainant resident of Sector 10, Panchkula, chooses the A B Resorts (OP-1) in Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, after driving many kilometers for having snacks of his choice to enjoy ambience of this hotel keeping in view the extra comfort, amenities and special services provided by therein. The Complainant could have buy such mineral water bottles near his house or from roadside vendors at the printed price of MRP or even for less. It is only for the extra amenities, comfort, facilities, amenities, luxury, ambience and special services available at the Restaurant that the Complainant has preferred to have meals at this hotel on the higher price.
10.     Furthermore, we rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India Vs. Union of India & Others 2007 in Civil Appeal No.21791 of 2017 and the relevant portion of the said judgment reproduced as under:-

         “15) A cursory reading of the aforesaid definition would show that it refers only to the fact that a pre-packaged commodity should have a pre-determined quantity as stated in the definition section. It has no bearing whatsoever on the issue before us. Equally, reliance upon Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules again does not lead us anywhere. Rule 3 of the said Rules read as follows:-

         “3. Applicability of the Chapter.- The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to,-

(a) packages of commodities containing quantity of more than 25 kg or 25 litre excluding cement and fertilizer sold in bags up to 50 kg; and

(b) packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers or institutional consumers.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule,-

(i) “institutional consumer” means the institutional consumer like transportation, Airways, Railways, Hotels, Hospitals or any other service institutions who buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturer for use by that institution;

(ii) “industrial consumer” means the industrial consumer who buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturer for use by that industry.”

16) Mr. Sinha relied upon the definition of institutional consumer contained in explanation (i) in order to show that hotels, in particular, would be under the coverage of the Act read with the Rules. First and foremost, a reading of the opening of Rule 3 would show that the provisions of the Chapter would not apply to packaged commodities meant for institutional consumers such as hotels. Also, the Rules cannot take us very much further when it has already been held by us that the Act itself would not apply for the reasons given herein above.

17) We are, therefore, of the view that neither the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 read with the enactment of 1985, or the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, would apply so as to interdict the sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants at prices which are above the MRP.

10.       It is not the case of the complainant that OP No.1 ever sent any kind of bouncer and other staff near to the complainant to forcibly sell the items of its hotel. The rates of the eatables as well as the drinking items are mentioned in the menu card, which was duly presented to the complainant by the OP No.1 who has charged according to the said menu card rates.

11.       Keeping in view the above facts as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject, we are of the concerted opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party or that the Opposite Party adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
17/10/2022			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member