Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/540

Sumit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ghanta Ghar - Opp.Party(s)

Devan Verma Adv.

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  540 of 27.07.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision: 10.03.2017.

Sumit Gabba aged about 27 years son of Shri Naresh Gabba, resident of Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, backside Prem Lata Hospital, Malerkotla.                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Ghanta Ghar, 13-B, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/its Proprietor/Partner/Managing Director/Authorized person.
2. Manager, Ghanta Ghar, 13-B, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Devan Verma, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Exparte(Sh. H.S. Narang, Advocate)

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he after visiting premises of OP1 on 24.07.2016 with his friends purchased coupon for deal of OP1 from little internet services ltd. @ Rs.599/-. That amount was already paid through online transaction. As per that coupon food and soft drinks were to be provided by OP1 and OP2. Bill of supplied water was not included in that transaction. Complainant demanded water and Ops supplied one mineral water bottle having brand Bislery Vedica  no. RUB No.168 (INS/SB). While enjoying meals, it was noticed by the complainant that the packed drinking water bottle of one little has MRP of Rs.50/- on the neck of the bottle. However, Ops charged Rs.125/- and imposed service tax of 5.8% along with VAT and service charges. Act of charging Rs.125/- for the mineral water against the printed MRP of Rs.50/- alleged to be an act of unfair trade practice. Matter not settled despite requests. Prayer made for directing Ops to discontinue practice of charging excess than MRP and even pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment. Counsel fee of Rs.5,500/- more claimed.

2.                Ops are exparte in this case. Later on an application for setting aside exparte order dated 03.11.2016 was filed at the time when case was fixed for arguments after closure of exparte evidence. That application was dismissed vide orders dated 03.03.2017 by giving liberty to counsel for Ops to address arguments.

3.                Complainant to prove his case, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 & Ex. C2 and then closed evidence.

4.                Arguments of counsel for complainant as well as of Ops heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Contents of affidavit Ex. CA of complaint along with the produced mineral water bottle in the Forum shows that Rs.50/- MRP is printed on this bottle. However, retail bill Ex. C1 shows as if Rs.125/- in all charged for this mineral water bottle of one liter by mentioning the price thereof as Rs.100/-, but Rs.14/- on account of VAT charges; Rs.6/- as service tax @ 5.8% and Rs.5/- as service charge @ 5%. So from this produced document, it is established that though MRP of supplied bottle was Rs.50/-, but Ops charged Rs.125/- against printed MRP of Rs.50/-. Rs.75/- as such has been charged in excess for this supplied mineral water bottle to complainant.

6.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that the establishment of OP1 provides facilities of wallet parking, security, light music well educated staff and as such, virtually five star facilities are provided, due to which Ops are entitled to charge the price as per menu. However, no evidence available on record to establish that said facilities are provided or that any printed menu of Ops is there. Even if establishment of OP1 may be in posh area of city, despite that charging of price in excess of MRP is an act of unfair trade practice.

7.                In the cases titled as Hotel Navtara Vs Kishore Mandrekar 2013(3) C.P.J. 113 (Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji); Zaika Bazar Vs Hemant Goel 2007(2) C.P.J. 96 (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi); Sevanvrit Karamchari Evam Upbhokta Sauroksham Samiti Vs Kunj Homeo Pharmasi and others I(1998) CPJ 94 (Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lukhnow) and Kamat Hotels Vs Prahlad N. Padalikar and another 2012(5) AIIMR (JS) 51 (Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), it has been held that charging of price in excess of MRP printed on the packed water bottle  in a particular hotel, is an unscrupulous practice, which amounts to unfair trade practice. In case of Kamat Hotels (Supra), it has been held that in case nexus with quality, quantity, purity or service is not established for charging excess amount than that of the MRP, then the same amounts to unfair trade practice. Ratio of all these cases fully applicable to the facts of present case, particularly when no evidence of Ops available for establishing that facilities of five star hotel provided or the menu card printed shows the charging of excess price. It is also not established by any evidence that concern of Ops is a hotel or restaurant. Being so benefit from the ratio of case titled as The Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India and others Vs Union of India and others 2007 AIR (Delhi) 137 not available to Ops. As the price charged is more than double of the MRP and as such, it is fit and appropriate to award somewhat exorbitant compensation so that Ops may not dare to charge hefty price in such like manner from other customers.

8.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will refund excess charged amount of Rs.75/- and even will pay compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops, whose liability held as joint and several. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case these amounts not paid within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order, then Ops will have to pay interest @8% per annum from today onwards till payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                       (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                    (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:10.03.2017.

Gobind Ram.