Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/194/2017

Sahib Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Farmers Restaurant - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/194/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	06/03/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	19/12/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Sahib Singh son of Late Shri Hari Singh, House No.2205/2, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant.

 

Versus

 

Farmers Restaurant, SCO 232-233, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Prop.

 

 ……. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN         PRESIDENT

          SMT.SURJEET KAUR        MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Jagan Nath Bhandari, Advocate.

 

PER MRS.SURjeet kaur, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Sahib Singh has preferred the instant consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Farmers Restaurant (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that he along with his family went to the premises of Opposite Party on 05.02.2017 for dinner, where the Opposite Party charged him Rs.70/- for a mineral water bottle and cold drink. The Complainant has averred that the MRP of the mineral water bottle was Rs.20/- and that of cold drink (Sprit) was Rs.32/-; whereas, the Opposite Party charged Rs.40/- for the cold drink bottle and Rs.30/- for the mineral water bottle. The Complainant accordingly raised his protest for charging extra amount, but to no avail as the Opposite Party did not respond to his grievance. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party No. in its reply has pleaded that the Complainant ordered the food, one bottle of mineral water and one cold drink, which were served to him on his table. The price and rate of cold drinks and other beverages were as per the menu card of the restaurant. The Complainant was fully aware and satisfied with the price of food and beverages before ordering the same. It has been asserted that when the Complainant raised protest for the bill, he was clarified that as per menu card, Rs.50/- was charged for cold drink and Rs.20/- for mineral water and therefore nothing extra amount has been charged.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have also perused the material placed on record.

 

7.      The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) Nos. 14691-16927/05 – The Federation of Hotels & Restaurants Association of India and Others Versus Union of India and Others with W.P.(C) No.9528/03 and W.P.(C) Nos. 13775-14072/2005 National Restaurant Association of India Versus Union of India and Others, on identical facts, decided on March 05, 2007, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of State of H.P. Versus Associated Hotels of India, AIR 1972 SC 1131 (also reported as the State of Punjab Versus Associated Hotels of India Limited (1972) I SCC 472; (1972) 2 SCR 937, has held in Para No. 16 as under:-

 

“16. In the above analysis, I hold that charging prices for mineral water in excess of MRP printed on the packaging, during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the SWM Act as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hoteliers or Restaurateur to its customers. The customer does not enter a hotel or a restaurant to make a simple purchase of these commodities. It may well be that a client would order nothing beyond a bottle of water or a beverage, but his direct purpose in doing so would clearly travel to enjoying the ambience available therein and incidentally to the ordering of any article for consumption. Can there be any justifiable reason for the Court or Commission to interdict the sale of bottled mineral water other than at a certain price, and ignore the relatively exorbitant charge of a cup of tea or coffee. The response to this rhetorical query cannot but be in the negative. Although the vires of Rule 23 have been assailed. I do not find it necessary to answer that challenge since the provision relates to sales between dealers and neither the hotels and restaurants of the one part and customers of the other falls within this categorization.”    

 

8.      The Complainant, resident of Sector 37, Chandigarh volunteered, chooses this Restaurant (Farmers Restaurant) in Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, after driving for about 3 Kms., for having dinner to enjoy the ambience of this hotel keeping in view the extra comfort, amenities and special services provided by therein. The Complainant could have buy such mineral water bottles near his house or from roadside vendors at the printed price of MRP or even for less. It is only for the extra amenities, comfort, facilities, amenities, luxury, ambience and special services available at the Restaurant that the Complainant has preferred to have dinner at this hotel on the higher price.

 

9.      Keeping in view the above facts as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject, we are of the concerted opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party or that the Opposite Party adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th Dec., 2017                                                 Sd/-         

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

“Dutt”