Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/442/2014

Shri Lovepreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Saini

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/442/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	07/07/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	08/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Lovepreet Singh s/o Sh.Sucha Singh, R/o V.P.O. Sohana, Tehsil and District Mohali, Punjab.

             

Complainant

Vs

 

[1] Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Company Limited (Franchise of Café Coffee Day), Shop No.47, Ground Floor, Plot No.178-178A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Elante Mall, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

 

[2] Coffee Day Square, 23/2, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore, 560001, through its Managing Director.

 

Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH.P.L. AHUJA              PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

 

Present:      Sh. Gurpreet Singh Saini, Counsel for Complainant.

            Ms. Renu Sardana, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Bipin, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

            Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      The epigrammatic facts of the case are that on 03.07.2014, the complainant alongwith his family members, went to the Café of Opposite Party No.1, to have a cup of coffee. The complainant also ordered two lounge cappuccino, worth Rs.198/-, vide bill No.3798 dated 03.07.2014. It is alleged that when the complainant, after having the said snacks, went to the counter of Opposite Party No.1, for payment, to his utter surprise, he was asked to pay an additional amount of Rs.05.94Ps., towards service charges. It has been further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to disclose, as to who authorized them to charge such service charges, from the customers. It has been further stated that when the complainant refused to accede to the illegal demand of service charges, made by the Opposite Parties, he was insulted in front of his family members. As such, left with no other alternative, the complainant had to pay the said service charges, to the Opposite Parties. Hence according to the Complainant the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, he filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. As none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, it was proceeded ex-parte on 20.08.2014.

 

3.      The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has stated that it runs three Cafes called “The Lounge” where it collects Service Charges.  This charge is clearly mentioned in the Menu Card and is only for the purpose of paying to the Waiters, which becomes an extra earning above the basic minimum wages to them. This service charge is levied on the customer only for the benefit of the Waiter, who provides various services to assist the customer and make him/her feel comfortable. The Opposite Party No.1 has stated that the complainant placed his order only after looking at the Menu Card where service charge is clearly written.  The amount collected as service charge is directly paid to the Waiter staff.  No restraint was made on the Complainant for leaving the café due to non-payment of service charge. Denying all other allegations, the Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties. Opposite Party No.2 is already ex-parte.  

 

6.      The key controversy swirls around the short question, “whether the action of the Opposite Party No.1 in levying the Service Charge amounting to Rs.5.94P, on the total bill raised, from the Complainant, is justified or not. 

 

7.      Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in the negative.

 

8.      It is evident from the averments of the Complainant, which are also not denied by OP No.1, that the complainant has been charged service charge amounting to Rs.5.94/- on the bill raised by Opposite Party No.1 for the Lounge Cappuccino ordered by him.  Even though statute does not provide for levy of any service charge, the Opposite Party No.1 has taken the amount of Rs.5.94/- as Service Charge from the complainant, which according to it is a payment for the waiters for the services rendered by it.  We do not find any merit in this contention as there is nothing on record, to substantiate this fact.

 

9.      It is correct that Restaurateur provides many services, in addition to supply of food. He provides furniture, furnishings, linen, crockery and cutlery etc. and in order to compensate for these services, the Government has authorized the Restaurateur to charge the service tax @4.94% on 40% of the bill amount and they are authorized to do so under Section 2C of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. So, in our opinion, if the Opposite Parties are charging any other illegal tax, it amounts to unfair trade practice.

 

10.      We feel that the Opposite Parties have been fleecing customers by charging money @ 3% on the bill as service charges as per Annexure C-1. By levying service charges, illegally, the restaurants are putting additional burden on consumers, who already have to pay around 25% taxes in form of Value Added Tax (VAT) at the rate of 12.5% and Service Tax at the rate of 4.94%. Pertinently, the Chandigarh Administration has recently declared service charge as illegal vide instructions dated 31.10.2014 and has directed all the restaurants and hotels of Chandigarh not to levy service charge on the customers. Meaning thereby, the service charge cannot be levied on food served at the table.

 

11.      The Opposite Party No.1 has taken the stand of charging the service charge on the ground that the money charged was for the benefit of the Waiters to improve their means who provide services to their customers. However, the Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to place on record any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to show the same. Hence, the excuse taken by the Opposite Party No.1 does not hold any water. However, there is no statutory law under which service charges are levied. Even otherwise also, the Opposite Party No.1 has not placed on record any statute/ instructions/ guidelines, which entitles it to levy the service charge to the extent it charged from the Complainant, in the present Complaint. It is thus, legitimately, proved that the Opposite Party No.1 had resorted to unfair trade practice in collecting the excess amount and had failed to return the same, which resulted in mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.   

 

12.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.5.94P charged from the Complainant as Service Charge;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.7,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of Para 12 above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c] above.  

 

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08^th April,2015                                       

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER