DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1631 of 2020
Date of institution: 21.09.2020 Date of decision : 09.11.2021
Kulwinder Singh son of Late Shri Charanjit Singh, resident of K.No.86, Phase-6, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
Barista, Unit of Barista Coffee Company Ltd., SCF No.12, Phase-3, Mohali through its Incharge/Manager/Proprietor.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar, authorized representative of the Opposite Party.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that on 15.09.2020, the CC visited the coffee shop of the OP situated at Phase-3, Mohali and ordered one cup of coffee. It is further averred that advertisement of the rates of various types of coffees were displayed at the counter. It is further averred that the CC ordered one cup of coffee “latte” for which the OP mentioned the price of Rs.160/-, but the Manager/Billing official demanded Rs.173/- to which the CC objected that since there was an extra demand of Rs.5/- for packaging charges and Rs.8/- for CGST & SGST on Rs.165/- which were not at all mentioned in the advertisement or the Menu Card or on the display board or anywhere. It is further averred that there were a number of customers in the shop, who advised the CC that if he cannot pay Rs.5/- extra then, he should leave the coffee and the shop. It is alleged that the act and conduct of the OP in showing different rates on the display board and not disclosing the actual price exchange is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. It is further averred that as per Section 2 sub section 1 ‘advertisement’ means any audio or visual publicity, representation, endorsement or pronouncement made by means of light, sound, smoke, gas, print, electronic media, internet or website and includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or such other documents. The rates of coffee displayed/advertised at the counter amounts to notice/representation and are covered under the misleading advertisement.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought directions to the OP to pay Rs.10,00,000/- in the Legal Aid Fund. The CC has further demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply the OP has raised a number of preliminary objections, including that the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands. It is further averred that the complaint is based on false and misconceived allegations of the CC. It is further averred that the OP is a well reputed and renowned Company and takes great pride in its products and related services. The allegations mentioned in the complaint are wrong, incorrect and false. It is averred that the CC has taken undue advantage of his own wrong. Further the maintainability of the complaint is also challenged. On merits, averments of the complaint are denied. Even visit of the CC on 15.09.2020 is denied. It is further averred that the OP had displayed multiple display boards for different charges and display board prominently declare all the prices of the products being sold at the coffee shop. It is also averred that prices mentioned are inclusive of taxes and applicable taxes are charged separately. It is further averred that the coffee shop of the OP serve the food and beverage items to its customers for consumption at the coffee shop only. It is averred that if any request is received by the OP from the customer for packaging the goods for take away from the coffee shop then at the specific request of the customer the products are specifically packed and delivered to the customer for take away. It is also averred that the OP has placed a separate board/declaration providing that for packaging and take away products, separate charges will be applicable and in this regard the information about packaging/take away charges is also provided to the customers before billing and the bill is raised only after the consent of the customer. It is denied by the OP that the CC ordered one cup of coffee Latte for which OP has mentioned rate of Rs.160/- and that the Manager/billing official demanded Rs.173/- to which the CC objected for demanding extra Rs.8/- and on which the officials informed that they are taking .01 as take away charges, Rs.5/- for packaging charges and Rs.8/- for CGST and SGST on Rs.165/- which were not at all mentioned in the advertisement/Menu Card. It is averred that the OP has prominently declared/displayed at its coffee shop that take away and packages charges are separately chargeable for the take away orders and intimation in this regard also served to all the take away customers in advance before billing and only after consent of the customer the bill is raised. Thus, denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The CC in support of his complaint submitted his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3. On the other hand, the OP has not submitted any document in its evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and authorized representative of the OP and have perused the record.
5. The case was listed on 05.07.2021 for production of documents by the parties and arguments and then the case is listed for today for production of documents by the parties and for arguments. Even prior to that case was listed on 23.06.2021 when the OP filed reply, but till date the parties have failed to submit any specific document in support of their respective version. The CC stated that he does not want to produce any documents and the documents already submitted by him may be read as part of his evidence. Accordingly, in the absence of any document or cogent evidence from the side of the OP, we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint which are duly supported by the bill and photocopy of the Menu Card submitted by the CC. The point in controversy before us is, whether the OP had displayed the price of the Latte Coffee @ Rs.160/- and could charge Rs.173/- by mentioning Rs.5/- for packaging charges and Rs.8/- as CGST and SGST charges. The OP has not specifically clarified that how could it charge Rs.5/- extra as mentioned in Ex.C-2 as packaging charges. We feel that the CC had every right to seek clarification from the OP at the time of preparation of bill. The OP on the other hand, while filing reply has admitted that it had displayed multiple display boards for different charges and the display boards prominently declare all prices of the products being sold at the coffee shop. It is further averred that the prices mentioned are inclusive of taxes and applicable taxes are charged separately. In the absence of any such document or even photocopy of the display board or menu card by the OP, we have no alternative except to accept that the contents of the complaint are true and correct. There is nothing on record to prove from the side of the OP that it had displayed separate boards/declarations, showing clearly that in case anybody wants to take away the coffee or any other article, in that event he is bound to pay packaging charges/take away charges. We feel, that the customer cannot be given surprise once he orders one cup of coffee at a price of Rs.160/- which is also otherwise a highly exorbitant amount. In the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence submitted by the OP, we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint, which otherwise appears to be reasonable and confidence inspiring and bonafide. We feel, that deficiency in service and malpractice on the part of the OP is proved on the file.
6. It is also possible that the OP must have collected thousands of rupees from various customers in such a manner. It is also possible that OP must have continued this practice for years and had collected huge amount. In order to curb such malpractice, it is important to impose special cost on the OP so that correct message should go in the society and such traders will think thousand times before adopting this practice again.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and order the OP to refund to the CC an amount of Rs.5/- charged extra from him. The OP is further ordered to pay a consolidated compensation amount to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The OP is also burdened to pay punitive cost to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) which the OP will deposit in the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. This punitive cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed to refrain the OP from doing such activities again. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the complainant as well as OPs, as per rules. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced
November 09, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
