BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.355 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 26.08.2019

      Date of Decision: 16.02.2023

Rajan Kumar Son of Sh. Sham Lal, Resident of Mohala Kazian, Ward No.4, Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar Mobile:70093-16064.

..........Complainant

Versus

Chicken 99 (Restaurant) Near Syndicate Bank, Railway Station Road, Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar through its Manager or Authorized Signatory.

….….. Opposite Party

          Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       None for the Complainant.

Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant went to the restaurant running in the name and style of Chicken 99, situated at Town Phillaur and consumed food there and also received the services of the said restaurant and as such the complainant here is a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In the fine evening of 11-07-2019 the complainant along with his friends went to the restaurant of OP namely Chicken 99, for having dinner and ordered the food along with a 2 Soft Drinks Coka Cola 'Coke' of 750 ML each, which is having a MRP Rs.40/- per bottle. But to the utter surprise of Complainant when he saw the bill (Bill No. 1629) which is issued by opposite party restaurant, for this above said order of food and soft drink, you have charged Rs 100/-for 2 bottles of Soft Drink Coka Cola Coke, which is having an actual MRP Rs. 40/- for each bottle. But to the utter surprise of complainant when he saw the bill, which is issued by OP restaurant, for this above said order of food and soft drink, OPs have charged Rs.100/- for 2 bottles of Soft Drink Coka Cola Coke, which is having an actual MRP Rs. 40/- for each bottle. Again on 13/07/2019 complainant visited OP restaurant to have food and again ordered a food and 1 bottle of Soft Drink Coka Cola, again OP restaurant have charged Rs.50/- for one bottle of Coke in a Bill, which is issued by OP for this above said order. It shows ill intentions of OP to loot a hard earned money of innocent customers by charging a more then Maximum Retail Price of Product. The Maximum Retail Price of 750 ML bottle of soft drink coka cola coke which is mentioned on its bottle is Rs.40/- and in the bill the said respondent/ opposite party restaurant has charged Rs.50/- for each bottle, which is above the Maximum Retail Price. The complainant after receiving the bill made protest of charging more than Maximum Retail Price of Soft drink bottles with the manager of respondent/OP restaurant, but he rudely refused to look into the matter and asked the complainant to pay the bill politely or to face the consequences. The complainant gave Legal Notice dated 15.07.2019 to OP through his counsel, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to stop charging more than maximum retail price on soft drink bottle and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as fine, which is to be deposited in District Consumer Commission, Jalandhar and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this complaint is not maintainable in the present form. Both bill No.1629 and 1645 are not issued in the name of complainant (Rajan Kumar) because there is no mention of name of the complainant on both bills. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable and just an abuse of process of law. The complainant has tried to exploit the OP by collecting the blank bills of the restaurant and has tried to fill up the same and further tried to claim the compensation from the OP. It is further averred that as per the claim of the complainant, he came to the restaurant on 04.07.2019 and then on 13.07.2019. There is no record of his visit, he has produced. A layman can assume that if the restaurant is costly then he should not come again, therefore, the claim of the complainant is not convincing one. Hence does not keep any merit deserve to be dismissed. It is further averred that the bills are issued by the sellers in the name of the buyer/purchaser or the consumer. In this case, the complainant has consumed eatable in the restaurant and the restaurant has not issued any bills to the customers as there is no mention of name of the complainant on the bill. It is further averred that the complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The consumer is one who purchases items usable in the time to come future. Here the complaint is about the high rates of the eatable and there is no complaint about the deficiency in service and manufacturing defect, if any. On merits, the factum with regard to the restaurant in the name and style of Chicken 99, which is situated at Phillaur, is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the OP only as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint that he went to the restaurant of the OP and consumed food there on 11.07.2019. He also ordered the food alongwith two soft drinks Coka Cola ‘Coke’ of 750 ML each, the MRP of which is Rs.40/-, but the OPs have charged Rs.100/- for two bottles. Similarly, he went again to the same restaurant on 13.07.2019 and ordered food and one bottle of soft drink. Again the charges for the soft drinks were Rs.50/-, whereas on the bottle, the MRP is Rs.40/-. The complainant has alleged that the OPs cannot charge the amount more than the MRP. The complainant has proved on record the bills Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and legal notice Ex.C-3.

7.                The OPs have alleged that there is no record of the visit of the complainant in their restaurant and if the complainant was knowing that this restaurant is costly, he should have not come. The OPs has produced on record the Menu showing that the rate of drinks i.e. Pepsi, Coke, Fanta is Rs.50/-.

8.                Perusal of Ex.C-1 shows that the amount of Rs.100/- have been charged for two bottles of Coke on 11/03 and Rs.50/- has been charged for one bottle of Coke as per Ex.C-2. Perusal of these bills show that there is no mention of any name as to whom this bill was handed over or belong Though on this bill the sign of the complainant are there, but the name of the complainant has nowhere been mentioned nor on Ex.C-2, the date has been mentioned when the complainant allegedly visited the OP. On Ex.C-2 also the name of the complainant has not been mentioned. Even, in Ex.C-1, the date has been mentioned as 11/3, but no year has been mentioned. The complainant has also not produced on record the bottle on which the MRP has been mentioned as Rs.40/- as alleged nor any photograph of this bottle of Coke has been produced on record to prove his case. The documents produced on record by the complainant, nowhere connects the complaint to show that Rs.100/- have been charged illegally. As per Ex.OP-1, the amount of drinks has been mentioned as Rs.50/-. So, there is nothing on the record to show that he has ever visited the restaurant as no name of the complainant is mentioned anywhere nor there is any entry. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove his case and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

16.02.2023         Member                          Member           President