Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/196/2016

Dr. Amandeep Singh Marwaha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chilis Bar & Gill Premier Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Dr.Amandeep Singh Marwaha, H.No.1036, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

Chilis Bar & Grill Premier Restaurant Pvt. Ltd.  Elante  Mall, Chandigarh through Proprietor.

              ....Respondent/Opposite Party

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:       Appellant in person.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                    Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.198 of 2016 titled as Chilis Bar & Grill Premier Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr.Amandeep Singh Marwaha, this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. 

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no. 198 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no. 198 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                 Sd/-

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Chilis Bar & Grill Premier Restaurant Pvt. Ltd.,  Elante Mall, Chandigarh, through its Manager, NK Sharma.

……Appellant/ Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Dr.Amandeep Singh Marwaha H.No.1036, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent/ Complainant

Argued by:Sh.ADS Jattana, Advocate for the appellant.

=====================================================

Dr.Amandeep Singh Marwaha, H.No.1036, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

Chilis Bar & Grill Premier Restaurant Pvt. Ltd.  Elante  Mall, Chandigarh through Proprietor.

              ....Respondent/Opposite Party

Argued by: Appellant in person.

=====================================================

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                By this order, we shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of a common order dated 06.06.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it accepted a complaint, filed by the complainant (respondent in Appeal no.198 of 2016 and appellant in Appeal no.196 of 2016), and directed the opposite party (appellant in Appeal No.198 of 2016 and respondent in Appeal No.196 of 2016) as under:-

“[a]     To refund Rs.59/- being overcharged by it from the complainant towards service charge.

 [b]     To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 [c]      To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.”.    

2.         Before the Forum, it was case of the respondent/ complainant that he had a dinner and beverage, in a restaurant, run by the appellant on 14.09.2015. Bill for an amount of Rs.1834/- was raised by the appellant. On verification, it was found that the appellant had charged service charges, to the tune of of the billed amount. Besides as above, Value Added Tax (VAT) @12.5% i.e. Rs.25.06Ps., was also charged against alleged payable service charges. Dispute raised at the spot, failed to get any result, which compelled the respondent to file the consumer complaint bearing No.732 of 2015 before the Forum on 29.10.2015.
3.         Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant. Charging of additional amount was denied. It was said that the service charges is a nominal fee, collected from the customers, for the betterment of its (appellant) employees and the establishment thereof. It was further stated that service charges, is not a statutory liability. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4.         The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5.         After hearing the respondent in person, Counsel for the appellant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
6.         Feeling aggrieved, Appeal bearing No.198 of 2016 is filed by the opposite party for setting aside the order impugned, being illegal and invalid, whereas, on the other hand, cross Appeal bearing No.196 of 2016 is filed by the complainant, for enhancement of compensation to Rs.91,700/-, from Rs.5000/-, already awarded by the Forum.  
7.         We have heard Counsel for the appellants, in both the appeals, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
8.         It may be stated here that in the bill issued to the respondent (Appeal No.198 of 2016) and another bill issued to some other customer, it was found as a matter of fact that service charges were collected by the appellant @10%. To charge more, it was stated by the appellant that there was a scheme to buy one product and get one free. Additional product was supplied free. However, to serve it, service charges were leviable @10%. The said arguments were negated by the Forum, by observing as under:-

“We have also gone through the detailed menu card where in it is written “ we  levy 10% services charges. Taxes as applicable”.  Nowhere on the menu card it is mentioned that even for the items which will be served free under some offer will also be levied service charge @10%. Hence, any prudent man of normal intelligence will understand that any item which is served free will not carry any service charges in the absence of any mention thereof. Thus, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is deficient in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice. ”

9.           By making reference to menu card, it was rightly said that it doesn’t mention about charging service charges on every item to be provided free by the appellant. Once a product is supplied free with another product purchased as per the scheme, it is not imaginable that for the said free product, service charges will be levied. If a restaurant owner wish to impose such like charges, it has to be so mentioned in the scheme under which, free items were provided alongwith the purchased product(s). In the present case, it was nowhere said above. Accordingly, finding given by the Forum, holding the appellant guilty of providing deficient service and adopting unfair trade practice, is perfectly justified.
10.         Sh.ADS Jattana has placed reliance upon a judgment of the National Commission, in the case of D.K. Chopra Vs. Snack Bar, 2014 (2) CPJ 493, to say that the respondent would not fall under the category of consumer. We have perused the said judgment. It is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, dispute was qua charging of price more than Maximum Retail Price (MRP) mentioned on an article by a hotel, however, issue in this case is not the same. Furthermore, as per the definition of consumer given under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the respondent would clearly fall under the definition of consumer. No ground, whatsoever, is made out, by the appellant in Appeal No.198 of 2016, to make interference in the order under challenge.
11.         As far as enhancement of compensation, sought by the appellant/complainant in Appeal No.196 of 2016 is concerned, perusal of contents of the prayer made by him in the appeal, clearly goes to show that he is seeking enhancement of compensation amount, just with a view to donate the same to a Charitable Institution. It may be stated here that the Consumer Foras are meant to provide justice to a particular consumer, who approaches it (Fora) with his/her grievance, by granting compensation, keeping in mind the injuries/harassment/loss suffered by him/her. In the instant case, the excess paltry amount of Rs.59/- received from the complainant by the opposite party had already been ordered to be refunded, vide the order under challenge, alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. In our considered opinion, compensation as also litigation expenses awarded by the Forum, are fair, adequate and reasonable and in no manner, can be said to be on the lower side. No case, whatsoever, is made out, by the complainant, to make interference in the order under challenge, on this count too.
12.         No other point, was urged, by the parties concerned,  in both the appeals.
13.         For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld. 
14.         Certified copy of this order be placed on the file of Appeal No.196 of 2016.
15.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

13.07.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg