DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.89/2017
Sh. Akash Godhvani
D-5, First Floor, G. K. Enclave-1,
New Delhi-110048 ….Complainants
Versus
ABC Reloaded
A unit of GS Hospitality
Building No.30, Hauz Khas Village,
New Delhi-110016 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 10.03.2017 Date of Order : 29.09.2020
Coram:
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
- Succinctly put, complainant Sh. Akash Godhvani visited a restaurant by the name of ABC Reloaded (in short OP) alongwith his friend on 26.02.2017. Complainant ordered Kababs and a bottle of mineral water in the restaurant. Complainant was shocked by the bill he received for the food he consumed at the restaurant. The total bill of the Kababs and bottle of mineral water was Rs.746/-. OP had charged service charge @ 10% amounting to Rs.57.50, VAT @ 12.5% for Veg Mixed Kababs, amounting to Rs.65.63, VAT charged for the water bottle @ 20% i.e. amounting to Rs.10/- and Service Tax on total bill @ 6% i.e. Rs.37.95. The cost of Kababs that was charged was Rs.525/- and for the water bottle Rs.50/- was charged excluding taxes. To the utter dismay of the complainant the amount charged on Bailbeys water bottle was 150% more than the actual MRP printed on the bottle. The actual MRP printed on the water bottle was Rs.20/- (inclusive of all taxes) whereas the amount charged from the complainant was Rs.65/- including VAT @ 20% which is 7.5% more than the prescribed VAT rate of the mineral water and also included 10% services charges on this.
- Complainant upon having the knowledge of this extra money being charged made an oral complaint to the OP regarding the extra charges and requested them to refund the same. However, OP refused to refund the extra money charged from the complainant and stated that they usually charge the same from all the customers.
- It is averred that OP is not only deficient in service but has also indulged in unfair trade practice as it has violated the rules & norms of Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distributions. The notification issued by the Government Department above is reproduced below:-
2. “In the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011:-
(a) in rule 5, in sub-rule (1), the following proviso shall be inserted namely:
“Provided that if the Competent Authority under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) fixed and notified the standard quantity of any essential commodity, the standard quality of such essential commodities are fixed and notified shall prevail”
(b) in rule 6,-
after Proviso of Clause (e) of sub-rule (1), the following proviso shall be inserted namely:-
“Provided further that if the retail sale price of any essential commodity is fixed and notified by the Competent Authority under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the same shall apply.”
- Aggrieved by the conduct and behaviour of the OP complainant approached the Forum with prayers to direct OP to refund the amount of Rs.45/- paid by the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony & harassment and the litigation cost.
- Notice was duly served upon OP. As none appeared on behalf of the OP it was proceeded against exparte on 02.08.2017.
- Complainant has filed exparte evidence.
- Submissions made on behalf of the complainant are heard and material placed on record is perused carefully.
- Complainant in support of his case has filed copy of the notification of Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution marked as Mark-B alongwith copy of bill and receipt of payment dated 26.02.2017 marked as Mark-A. Copy of VAT list of commodity taxable @ 12.5% is also filed by the complainant marked as Mark-C.
- Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
- Reading the notification marked as Mark-B we opine that water is an essential commodity but ‘mineral water’ will not fall under the category of essential commodity. It is not complainant’s case that he was charged extra for plain or filtered water. The notification therefore has no bearing on the merits of this case. However, reading of the detailed bill given by OP shows that OP had charged VAT @ 20% on the mineral water bottle whereas the drinking water/mineral water sold in sealed packing is taxable @ 12.5% only. OP has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging 7.5% VAT in excess on the packed mineral water. The Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011 under Rule 18 specifically restricts retail dealer or other person to sell the packaged product over the retail sale price. For ready reference Rule-18 is reproduced below:-
“Rule 18 Provisions relating to wholesale dealer and retail dealers –
- No wholesale dealer or retail dealer or importer shall sell, distribute, deliver, display or store for sale any commodity in the packaged form unless the package complies with in all respects, the provisions of the Act and these rules.
- No retail dealer or other person including manufacturer, packer, importer and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof.”
- In light of the discussion above, the complaint is partly allowed. Accordingly, OP is directed to refund Rs.45/- which was charged extra for mineral water bottle by OP to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- be paid to the complainant towards harassment and litigation cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which OP shall pay the above said amount to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 29.09.2020
