Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/262

Manpreet Singh Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gill Plaza Multiplex - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan

25 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

              C.C. No. :                  262 of 2019

  Date of Institution:      18.10.2019

  Date of Decision :       25.05.2022

 

Manpreet Singh Gill aged about 33 years son of Ranjeet Singh son of Naib Singh, resident of Village Mallewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Gill Plaza Multiplex, Circular Road, Faridkot through its Managing Director.
2. District Magistrate, Faridkot.

                         ....Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:     Sh Gurpreet Singh Chauhan, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

                 Sh Navjot Singh Wahniwal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                 OP-2 Exparte.

* * * * * * * * * *

 

                cc no.262 of 2019

ORDER

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs  pleading deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP-1 and has requested for seeking directions to OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs.240/- and for further directing OP-1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-and has also prayed for directing OP-2 to take action against OP-1.

2                                  The brief facts of the present complaint pleaded by the complainant are that on 11.08.2019, complainant purchased 6 tickets for his family for watching Singham movie in the cinema of OP-1 on cash payment of Rs.1200/- and OP-1 charged ticket for the child under four years also. It is submitted that during interval, complainant purchased two medium popcorn and 2 coke medium 300 ml for which OP-1 charged him Rs.360/-. OPs charged Rs.100 for medium popcorn and Rs.80/-for medium 300 ml coke each. It is

cc no.262 of 2019

pertinent to mention that price of 300 ml coke is Rs.30 and of popcorn is Rs.20/-in market. Thus, complainant paid Rs.360/-for the articles of Rs.100/-. Moreover, packing of the whole stuff was open and it did not carry any date of manufacture or date of expiry and even on both products price were not mentioned. Complainant made several requests to OP-1 to not to charge so much excessive price for bottle of coke and pop corn, but they did not listen to his genuine requests and under compelling circumstances, complainant was compelled to pay exorbitant price for such eatables. Further submitted that cafeteria in the cinema hall is being run by OP-1 and entire profit from sale of such eatables at exorbitant price goes to OP-1. Further submitted that free portable and pure drinking water is the basis facility that cinema hall is required to make available to its patrons visiting their cinema with the hope of relaxing in a cool and comfortable environment. It is also brought to the notice that that responsibility for safe and free car parking is of OP-1 and they are not entitled to charge parking free from public, but OP-1 charged Rs.30/-from complainant for car parking. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs to refund Rs.240/-for

cc no.262 of 2019

charging excessive price of pop corn and coke, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.  He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 23.10.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                    OP-1 filed reply through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous. It is based on baseless allegations and is not maintainable. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect. It is admitted before the Commission that complainant purchased 6 tickets worth Rs.1200/-for watching movie in their theatre, but it is sternly denied by them that they charged ticket charges for a minor for watching movie, rather as per rules, minor was

cc no.262 of 2019

exempted from ticket charges. It is further averred that it may be that complainant purchased two medium butter popcorns and two bottles of medium 600ml coke. If he purchased the said products, then, he can be charged as per fixed rate which is displayed on front of canteen. It is averred that many types of popcorns are available in the market and in their multiplex, but complainant has not mentioned the type of popcorns purchased by him. It is further averred that coke fountain machine and other material is supplied by wave’s beverages pvt ltd and OP-1 also issued bill for same. Fresh pop corns and freshly chilled coke are prepared on the spot as per order through the machine. Fresh pop corns are given to customer in open box and coke is also given in glass, so both eatables remain open and do not carry date of manufacture and date of expiry as these are fresh. Moreover, OP-1 has to pay GST and tax on these things as fixed by government which is charged from customers. It is denied that answering OP compelled complainant to purchase eatables from them and moreover, drinking water is provided at their complex, free of costs. As per OPs, they charged parking fee as per vehicle because Op-1 left huge land and 

cc no.262 of 2019

spent huge amount of money for parking and have to keep some employees for the safety of vehicles of customers. OP-1 has denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and concocted ones and asserted that present complaint is not maintainable. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and no harassment or mental agony is caused to complainant. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                    As per office report, notice issued to OP-2 was duly served but on date fixed, case was called out several times since morning, but OP-2 did not appear in this Commission either in person or through counsel. It was presumed that OP-2 was not interested in contesting the claim of complainant and therefore, vide order dated 25.11.2019, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                      Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6, documents Ex C-1 to 5  and Ex C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

cc no.262 of 2019

7                                              To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Nrip Dev Singh Gill Ex OP-1/1, documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/7 and then, also closed the same on behalf of OP-1.

8                                        From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OP, it is observed that in the present complaint, the complainant narrated that he purchased 6 tickets for his family for watching a movie in the cinema of OP-1 and paid Rs.1200/-. OP-1 also charged ticket for the child under four years also. During interval, complainant purchased two medium popcorn and 2 coke medium 300 ml for which OPs charged him Rs.360/-. OPs charged Rs.100 for medium popcorn and Rs.80/-for medium 300 ml coke each. It is alleged that price of 300 ml coke is Rs.30 and of popcorn is Rs.20/-in market. Complainant paid Rs.360/-for the articles of Rs.100/-. Even stuff sold was open and it did not carry any date of manufacture or date of expiry and price were not mentioned over eatables. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated request OP-1, did not charge

cc no.262 of 2019

amount as per their actual rate, rather charged him excessive rate, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has also alleged that act of OP-1 in charging parking fee is not genuine. On the contrary, plea taken by OP-1 is that coke fountain machine and other material is supplied by wave’s beverages pvt ltd and fresh pop corns and freshly chilled coke are prepared on the spot as per order through the machine. Customers are given fresh popcorns and fresh coke on the spot on the order of customer. Popcorns are immediately prepared on the spot as per order and are served in open box, similarly coke is prepared fresh and is served in glass. As these are articles are not packed ones and are prepared immediately on the order of customer therefore, being totally fresh these do not carry date of manufacture or date of expiry. These are prepared on the spot and are ready for consumption and should not be kept for long period.

9                 Counsel for OP-1 further brought before the Commission that allegations levelled by complainant regarding exorbitant charges of eatables is totally wrong and to prove his version, he has placed

cc no.262 of 2019

reliance on citation given by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi): Law Finder Doc ID#369584 2009(160) DLT459:2009(112) DRJ123:2009(3) C.P.J. 244:2009(4) CLT 228:2009(33)R.C.R.(Civil)119:2009(5) ILR(Delhi) 625, wherein it is held that consumption of articles of food or drinks in hotels and restaurants do not constitute as sale (para4) and further that no prohibition has been imposed by the statute to sell any commodity in excess of the price stated on its package. Statute merely required the price of the commodity to be stated on the package. It is further held that provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures(Packaged Commodities) Rules,1977 are not applicable to provision of refreshments and beverages by the petitioner no.1 to its members and guests.

10                     He has further placed reliance on judgement given by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Nitin Mittal Vs Pind Balluchi Restaurant(NCDRC):Law Finder Doc ID#585151 2012 DNJ 126:2012(4)C.P.J. 224:2012 (3)

cc no.262 of 2019

C.P.R. 617:2012(65) R.C.R.(Civil) 716 wherein it is held that there has to be some difference in price in respect of food served in the restaurant itself and packed food. For the food which is served in the restaurant itself, the owner of the restaurant has to incur money for furniture, carpets, Air conditioners, fans, waiters, cleaning, moping and dusting the restaurant, maintenance of reception, etc; for packed food, there is no need to give such like services and dismissed the revision petition.

11                            Ld Counsel for OP-1 has further placed reliance on citation given by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.21790 of 2017 Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India Vs Union of India and Ors with Civil Appeal No.21791 of 2017wherein it is held that provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 are not applicable to services rendered in the premises of hotels and restaurants.

cc no.262 of 2019

12                      After  careful  perusal of the record, case law produced by OP-1 and in the light of  aforementioned discussion, we have  come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 as a person goes to hotels and restaurants to enjoy ambience available therein and it does not constitute sale or transfer of these commodities. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, under peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Commission:

Dated: 25.05.2022

      (Vishav Kant Garg)       Param Pal Kaur)            

       Member                      Member