Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 72

                                                                   Instituted on     : 02.02.2023

                                                                   Decided on       : 05.07.2023.

Nalin Singhal age 21 years, s/o Sh. Naveen Kumar R/o 1004A/19-Shakti Nagar, Green Road, Rohtak.

                                                                              ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Asta La Vista Restaurant, Near Medical Mor, Above Bata Showroom, Rohtak-124001 through its Owner/Manager.

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Nischay, Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite party already exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that complainant had booked a party on 27.01.2023 at the restaurant of opposite party. During the course of party many food items were ordered.  The opposite Party is having GSTIN:06AP0PV2177E2ZI. Upon receiving the bill, the complainant noticed that the opposite party has illegally included service charges of Rs.633/- plus GST in the bill without the consent of the complainant. The complainant protested the same and brought to the notice of opposite party about the fact that Central Consumer Protection Authority has already issued directives against charging of service charges by hotels and restaurants as the said charges are implicit in the charges of food as displayed on the menu. Such illegal addition of service charge is engaging in fraudulent and deceptive business practices and is an act of overcharging customers without their knowledge or consent. This is a violation of consumer rights and an act of unfair trade practice. The opposite party had also not displayed anywhere that any service charges was to be paid over and above the food prices menu list of opposite party.   When the complainant brought this to the notice of the staff , they were unable to provide any explanation and forced the complainant to pay the said illegal service charges and GST on the service charges. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount  of Rs.633/- plus GST on that amount i.e. Rs.665/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a., to tender a written apology to the complainant and to get the same published in local newspapers at their cost. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.100000/- towards compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   

2.                Notice issued to opposite party through process Server of this Commission received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party.  As such, opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.03.2023 of this Commission.  

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on 26.05.2023. 

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                Perusal of the bill Ex.C1 itself shows that an amount  of Rs.633/- has been charged on account of service charges alongwith CGST and SGST. The complainant also placed on record some instructions issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority dated 04.07.2022 placed on record as Ex.C3. As per these guidelines: “Restaurant cannot charge service charges in the bill involuntarily, without allowing consumers the choice or discretion to decide whether they want to pay such charges or not”. But in the present case the service charges have been charged by the restaurant against the guidelines issued by CCPA.  Hence the act of opposite party falls under restrictive trade practice and opposite party is liable to refund the amount of service charges and GST levied on service charges alongwith compensation to the complainant.

 6.               In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.633/- plus GST levied on this i.e. to pay Rs.665/-(Rupees six hundred and sixty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.02.2023 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

05.07.2023

                                                          ..........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………..

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                          ………………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.