CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

UdyogSadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.339/2013

MR. KAMAL ANAND

R/O 45/7 RAJPUR ROAD, CIVIL LINES,

DELHI- 110054                                                   …..COMPLAINANT

COSTA COFFEE

DEVYANI INTERNATIONAL LTD.

SHOP/ OUTLET AT: DLF COURTYARD, GFK-04

ATRIUM, DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET,

NEW DELHI

AND

REGD OFFICE AT: F-32/7, OKHLA PHASE-1,

NEW DELHI- 110020                                    .…..RESPONDENT

Date of Institution-11.04.2017

Date of Order-28.02.2023

O R D E R

RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN-PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has instituted the present complaint on account of unfair trade practice by making a false and misleading representation of the OP and also due to deficiency  in service interalia alleging that the OP is running a Coffee shop/ outlet under the name of Costa Coffee Devyani International Limited at DLF Mall District Centre Saket.

2. On 08.06.2013 the complainant went to the said mall and when approached the parking for taking out a parking slip from automatic machine one gentleman who was wearing Costa Coffee T-shirt handed over to the complainant a voucher bearing No. 7022 and told the complainant that his parking was free for that day provided the complainant spend Rs.250/- at Costa Coffee as mentioned on the said voucher. The copy of the voucher is annexed as Annexure 1.

3. The complainant along with his wife went to the Costa Coffee and spent an amount of Rs.570/- vide bill is annexed as Annexure 2.

4. While returning the complainant asked the parking person to make his parking free whereupon the parking attendant told that reimbursement would be done by Costa Coffee only. Thereafter, complainant went to Costa Coffee and asked for reimbursement of the parking fees as written on the voucher “spending Rs.250/- at Costa Coffee and get your parking ticket reimbursed.” The OP did not reimburse the amount to the complainant and he then approached Mr. Santosh Manager of Costa Coffee but he also did not reimburse the parking fees for unjustified reasons.

5. It is further alleged that the Manager fairly admitted that the vouchers given to the complainant was distributed by his team member saying that parking fees would be free for that day. It is alleged that the act of the OP resulted into humiliation of the customer in front of his wife and other public persons at Costa Coffee. The complainant was compelled to pay parking amount of Rs.60/- even after spending Rs.570/- at Costa Coffee. Parking Slip is annexed as Annexure 3.

6. It is further alleged that the act of OP amounted to exploitation of customers by unscrupulous service and running unfair trade practice in the form of making a false or misleading representation.

7. The complainant was therefore constrained to file the complaint with the prayer to refund an amount of Rs.570/- spent at Costa Coffee due to misleading representation of the OP and to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and physical harassment and also litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

8.   In reply the OP has contested the complaint stating that there was no deficiency of service; the complaint was false and fabricated. It is asserted that the OP and the concerned authority principally agreed in first week of July 2013 for conducting a promotional M- marketing activity by way of free parking offer at the Mall parking. This offer was however, subject to the condition that the holder of such voucher would visit the Costa Coffee outlet in the Mall and have the voucher as well as parking ticket duly stamped at the Costa Coffee outlet.

9. It is further agreed that the Mall authorities/ agency would be responsible for collecting all the duly stamped parking tickets as well as the voucher from the customers at the time of exit in which no parking charge would be collected from the customers.

10. It is further alleged that the scheme was launched in the first week of July 2013, therefore, the complainant was not entitled for a free parking on 08.06.2013 and for that reason the claim was bogus and frivolous. On merits/ averments made in the complaint has been controverted and denied.

11. The complainant has filed replication and rejoinder wherein it has reiterated the same facts as mentioned in the complaint and controverted and denied the averments of the reply.

12. Both the parties have filed their evidence wherein they have reiterated their stand taken in the complaint as well as their reply.

13. Complainant has filed its evidence and exhibited the following documents:-

1. Voucher of Costa Coffee is exhibited as Exhibit CW-1.
2. Bill of Costa Coffee is exhibited as Exhibit CW-2.
3. Parking slip is exhibited as Exhibit CW-3.

14. OP has filed its exhibited and exhibit the document:-

1. Email in relation to the scheme is exhibited as Exhibit OP1/1 (Colly).

15. Both the parties have filed their written arguments wherein they have reiterated the same stand as taken in their respective pleadings.

16. The Commission has gone through the evidence, documents and the arguments and also heard the Ld. Counsel for complainant. No one argued on behalf of OP. The written argument filed by OP has been duly considered.

17. In para No. 5 of the complaint the complainant has asserted as under:-

“However, it was fairly admitted by Mr. Santosh Manager of Costa Coffee that the vouchers given to the complainant was distributed by his team member by saying your parking is free today.” This positive assertion of complainant in the complaint has not been specifically denied by the OP in their reply.

18. In parawise, reply on merit in para No. 5 it is simply stated that “it is denied that the complainant forwarded his request to Costa Coffee Manager.” Nothing is mentioned about the positive assertion of the complainant as mentioned above i.e. It was fairly admitted by Mr. Santosh Manager that the vouchers given to the complainant was distributed by his team member.

19. Thus, those averments made in the complaint remains unrebutted and are believed to be true being unrebutted by the OP.

20. On perusal of the voucher exhibited CW-1 it is simply mentioned “Spend Rs.250/- at Costa Coffee and get your parking ticket reimbursed”. Even on the backside of the voucher nothing is mentioned that the said voucher and the parking slip needs to be sealed and signed by the officials of the Costa Coffee for the purpose of reimbursement. It is mentioned that the offer was valid till 15^th July. This voucher is ‘redeemable at Costa Coffee DLF Saket’.

‘Present this Voucher before placing the order’.

21. The other documentary as well as oral evidence of the complainant is also unrebutted because the complainant has also proved the bill as well as parking slip as CW-2 and CW-3. It is not believable and acceptable to the conscience of this Commission that a scheme which is alleged to be started in the month of July will end by 15^th July because on the voucher it is mentioned that the voucher was valid till 15^th July only. These facts shows that the scheme might have been started much before the beginning of the July and existence of the voucher Exhibit CW-1 and handing over the same admittedly to the complainant by his team member of the Manager of OP stands established and shows that the scheme was very well prevalent on the date of incident i.e. 08.06.2013. Moreover, no prudent person would make a false claim of the similar nature even supported by relevant documents.

22. The complainant sufficiently established that the voucher exhibited CW-1 was handed over to him in the parking of DLF Mall by employee of OP. The terms and conditions of the voucher were fulfilled and the complainant was entitled to the reimbursement of parking fees from the OP on the date of parking i.e. 08.06.2013. The denial of reimbursement of the parking voucher/ parking fees by the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Since, the reimbursement has been denied despite the voucher, the allurement of customers by OP would amount to unfair trade practice.

23. The complainant has also suffered humiliation and harassment due to the alleged incident in front of his wife and public persons and therefore, entitled to compensation as claimed.

24. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case we find OP guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and direct it as under:-

1. OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.570/- spent by the complainant at Costa Coffee.
2. OP is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000-/ towards mental agony, harassment and physical inconveniences.
3. OP is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges.

25. The above amounts will be paid along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

26. The order to be complied within 30 days from the date of uploading of order failing which it will carry an interest of @12% p.a. on entire payment from the date of order to till payment.

27. File be consigned to record room.