BEOFRE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.264 of 2015.
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 9.9.2015.
DATE OF ORDER: -31.05.2017.
Amit Singh Tanwar, Advocate District Courts, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana).
……… Complainant.
Versus
1.Baya Tourist Complex ( Branch of Haryana Tourism Corporation) Hansi Road, Bhiwani (through its authorized signatory).
2.Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd., SCO 17-19, Sec.17-B, Chandigarh( Through Its authorized signatory).
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE : Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present:- Sh.Jonpal Singh, Adv. for complainant.
Sh.Rajesh Tanwar, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that on 17.5.2015, the complainant alongwith his friends went to Baya Tourist complex and he ordered for ½ chilli chicken, two plates of cheese chilli, one place finger chips, three bottle of cold drinks (300 ML each of Mountain Dew). It is alleged that after refreshment the complainant asked for bill and the OP No.1 issued a bill No.121480 dated 17.5.2015, amounting to Rs.600/- in the name of complainant and excluding this the OP No.1 also charged a sum of Rs.79 as Vat and Rs.30/- as Service Tax, as such the OP No.1 charged total sum of Rs.709/- from the complainant. It is further alleged that MRP rate of each cold drinks bottle (Mountain Dews) 300 ML is Rs.15/- but the OP charged a sum of Rs.30/- on each bottle of cold drink as such the OPs have charged double amount from MRP. It is further alleged that when complainant told about charging of huge amount to OP No.1, the OP No.1 instead of correct the bill misbehaved with the complainant in presence of his friends. It is alleged that on dated 6.6.2015 a legal notice also served upon OP through his counsel Sh. John Pal Singh, Advocate and OP sent the reply of the same, in which he stated that they charged the amount as per menu and as per their policy. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he had to suffer mental agony and harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and OPs may kindly be ordered to return the amount, which was charged by them more than from MRP and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rs.5100/- on account of legal notice, Rs.5100/- on account of counsel fee and Rs.1800/- on account of typing etc. charges) on account of litigation charges and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the present complaint has been filed just to blackmail the OPs. It is submitted that the menu card is available on all the tables and all the rates of all types of articles were mentioned in the menu. It is further submitted that the restaurant of the OP No.1 is runs under the guidelines of OP No.1. It is submitted that OP NO.1 charges the amount of articles as mentioned in the menu, which is issued by OP No.2 and rates of menu were also assessed by the OP No.2 (in which all types of tax, vat, service charge were included). It is further submitted that in the restaurant service charge will be extra charged as per Haryana Tourist Guidelines as the answering respondent provide better service in peaceful manner and the answering respondent No.1 provide better service to the complainant as well as his companions. It is further submitted that if any person wants to go in any five star restaurant, he will liable to pay extra charges of five star hotel/restaurant. It is further submitted that the total amount recovered from the complainant is deposited by ht OP is his ledger. It is submitted that OP recovered the amount from every customer as per menu. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Mark A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the parties.
6 The counsel for complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that on 17.5.2015 he had taken 3 bottles of cold drinks each of 300 ML of Mount Dew alongwith other items. He submitted that the OP charged Rs.90/- for the cold drinks Rs.30/- for each cold drink in the bill No.121480 dated 17.5.2015. He further submitted that the OP also charged Rs.79 as Vat and Rs.30/- as service tax on the amount of bill of Rs.600/- and thus OPs charged Rs.709/- from the complainant. He submitted that MRP rate for each cold drink is Rs.15/- but the OPs charged Rs.30/- for the cold drinks, as such, the OPs charged the double amount of the MRP. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP has no right to charge any amount over and above the MRP.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that a menu card is available to the customers and the rates of all type of articles are mentioned therein. The rates of the articles are charged as per the menu rates, which are assessed by and under the direction of OP no. 2. He also referred the menu and submitted that it has been clearly mentioned that the taxes as applicable would be extra. He submitted that the rate of cold drink has been charged as per menu at Rs. 30/- for each, which is served to the customer.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record, carefully. The OPs in their in para no. 6 of the preliminary objection of the reply, has mentioned as under:-
The answering respondent no. 1 charges the amount of articles as mentioned in the menu, which is issued by the respondent no. 2 and rates of menu were also assessed by the respondent no. 2 (in which all types of tax, vat, service charge were included. It is submitted that in the restaurant service charge will be extra.
It is clear that the menu rates include all type of tax, vat, service charges. We specifically asked the counsel for the OPs to explain his aforesaid contention given in the written statement, in the context of menu wherein it has been mentioned that the taxes as applicable would be extra, but he could not give any satisfactory explanation.
9. It is not the case of the complainant that he purchased the cold drink bottles without opening and the same were not served in the glasses to them. Indisputably, the complainant consumed various items and he also consumed the cold drink, which was served by the OP no. 1 and better services were provided by the OP no. 1 to the complainant as well as his companions, as per contention of the Ops, which is not denied by the complainant. If in a hotel/restaurant a cold drink is served after getting it open in glasses with ice the customer is liable to pay for the same as per the rates given in the menu. Therefore, we cannot held that the OP no. 1 has charged the excess amount. Moreover, the OP no. 1 is bound by the instruction and direction of OP no. 2. Hence the complaint of the complainant cannot succeed.
10. The stand of OPs in the written statement is different and against the instructions given in the menu while it has been stated in the written statement that the OP no. 1 charges the rates as per the guidelines of OP no. 1. Because as per the menu produced by the OP no. 1, the taxes as applicable would be extra and in the written statement it has been mentioned that menu includes all type of tax, vat, service charges etc. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we impose a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the OPs, which shall be deposited by the OPs with this District Forum within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP no. 1 shall be personally liable to deposit the said cost alongwith Rs. 50/- for delay of each day till the date of deposit of the cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to both the parties, free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 31.05.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
