Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/512/2015

Mr. Satyajeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Barista Coffee Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Krishan M. Vohra

03 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/512/2015
Date of Institution	:	05/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	03/02/2016

 

 

Mr. Satyajeet Singh aged about 27 years s/o Sh. B.R. Kanmal, resident of House No.46/1, Amrit Kunj, KhudaAli Sher, Chandigarh (U.T.)

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Barista Coffee Co. Ltd., S.C.O. 63-64, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh (U.T.) through its Manager.

2.     Barista Coffee Company Limited, Unit No.2, 4^th Floor, Southern Park, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Manager/M.D [Deleted vide order dated 29.9.2015]

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

       

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Krishan M. Vohra, Counsel for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Mayank Mehandru, Counsel for OP-1.
	:	OP-2 deleted.

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Satyajeet Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Barista Coffee Co. Ltd. and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that on 13.7.2015 he alongwith his friends went to OP-1 and ordered four items that included 3 regular size Barista Frappe and 1 regular size Cappuccino and he was asked to pay an amount of Rs.705/- vide hand written bill, but, there were no details of how calculation was made.  When the complainant asked for the details of items and taxes charged from OP-1, the same was refused and he was insulted in front of his friends. The complainant has averred that as per the menu card, photograph of which was clicked by him, cost of barista Frappe regular size was Rs.169/- and that of regular size Cappuccino was Rs.89/- and the total came to Rs.596/- whereas he was asked to pay Rs.705/-. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written reply, OP-1 has denied that the complainant was provided with a written memo and that the cash memo was not having details of items and taxes.  It has been stated that the cash memo issued bore the endorsement both in printed form as well as hand written that the price charged was inclusive of taxes.  It has been contended that due to technical fault in the computer system, electronically generated bills were not issued by the OP on 12^th and 13^th of July, 2015. It has been averred that the price mentioned over the menu card were exclusive of taxes and the same were chargeable separately.  It has been denied that the complainant was charged Rs.109/- extra.  It has been pleaded that imposition and charging of tax is a statutory obligation upon the OP. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part,
   OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In view of the endorsement made by the complainant on the complaint, name of OP-2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 29.9.2015.
4.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
7.         There are three main documents on record – Annexure P-1 and P-2, filed by the complainant, and Annexure OP-3, filed by OP-1.  Annexure P-1 is the copy of the cash memo prepared manually by OP-1 for a total sum of Rs.705/- covering two items i.e. Barista Frappe x 3 for Rs.600/- and Cappuccino x 1 for Rs.105/-.  The second document Annexure P-2 is the copy of menu card of OP-1 representing the prices of various items. The third document Annexure OP-3 is a computerized bill for the same items as mentioned in the manually prepared cash memo (Annexure P-1), but, it is for the sum of Rs.704/-. 
8.         The stand of the complainant is that as against the amount of Rs.596/- for the two items, as per the menu card, he was charged Rs.705/- i.e. excess by Rs.109/- by OP-1 vide cash memo (Annexure P-1) without providing any details for the same.  On the other hand the contention of OP-1 is that due to fault in the computer system, the electronically generated bills could not be issued on 12^th & 13^th July, 2015 and that the prices mentioned in the menu card were excluding taxes. A perusal of the copy of menu card (Annexure OP-4) clearly shows that at the bottom it is mentioned “taxes extra”.  OP-1 has also placed on record a copy of the computerized retail invoice as Annexure OP-3 showing the levy of taxes on the amount of items ordered by the complainant. However, OP-1 has failed to explain how it charged Rs.705/- from the complainant vide cash memo (Annexure P-1) when the total amount of the bill, including taxes, as per Annexure OP-3 was Rs.704/-.  It is not the case of OP-1 that the cash memo (Annexure P-1) was not twice issued by it. Hence, discrepancy in the same document prepared by OP-1 itself points out towards its indulgence into an unfair trade practice which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed. OP-1 is directed :-

 (i)    To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice on its part and harassment caused to him.

(ii)    To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

10.         This order be complied with by OP-1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/02/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member