Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/289

Nirmal Singh - 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. :                  289 of 2019

  Date of Institution:      11.12.2019

  Date of Decision :       25.05.2022

 

Nirmal Singh aged about 34 years son of Neela Singh, resident of Village Gondara, 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.289 of 2019

ORDER

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

 

                       In the present complaint, the 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 and has requested for seeking directions to OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs.30/- 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 2 tickets for his family for watching Singham movie in the cinema of OP-1 on cash payment of Rs.400/-. It is submitted that during interval, complainant purchased one coke medium 300 ml for which OPs charged him Rs.60/-. OPs charged Rs.60/- for medium 300 ml coke each. It is pertinent to mention that price of 300 ml coke is Rs.30, but OP-1 charged Rs.60/-for that instead of Rs.30/-. Moreover, packing of

cc no.289 of 2019

the whole stuff was open and it did not carry any date of manufacture or date of expiry and even on product price was not mentioned. Complainant made several requests to OP-1 to not to charge so much excessive price for bottle of coke, but they did not listen to his genuine requests and under compelling circumstances, complainant was compelled to pay exorbitant price for such eatable. 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. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs to refund Rs.30/-for charging excessive price of 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.

 

                 cc no.289 of 2019

3                                    The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.12.2019, 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 2 tickets worth Rs.200 each for watching movie in their theatre. It is further averred that complainant purchased one fresh small open chilled fountain coke of 300 ml with good material glass and sucking pipe for Rs.60/-. It is further averred that coke fountain machine and other material is supplied by wave’s beverages pvt ltd OP-1 and OP-1 also issued bill for same. Freshly chilled coke is prepared on the spot as per order through the machine. Fresh coke is given in glass, so it remains open and does not carry any date of manufacture and date of expiry as it is sold fresh and prepared

               cc no.289 of 2019

on the spot. 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. 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                                         On receipt of the notice, OP-2 appeared in this Commission through representative Sh Bakhsish Singh, but despite availing several opportunities, OP-2 did not file reply. Case called out several times since morning, but on date fixed OP-2 neither appeared in person or through counsel nor filed any written version. It appears that OP-2 is not interested in contesting the claim of complainant and therefore, vide order dated 16.02.2021, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

 

                     cc no.289 of 2019

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-1, documents Ex C-2 to 5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Nrip Dev Singh Gill Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/8 and then, 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 2 tickets for his family for watching a movie in the cinema of OP-1 and paid Rs.400/-. During interval, complainant purchased one coke of 300ml for Rs.60. It is alleged that OP-1 charged Rs.60/-for the drink worth Rs.30/-.

 

 

                     cc no.289 of 2019

Even stuff sold was open and it did not carry any date of manufacture or date of expiry and price were not mentioned over it. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated request OP-1, did not charge amount as per its actual rate, rather charged him excessive rate, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has also alleged that act of OP-1 in charging excessive amount 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 freshly chilled coke is prepared on the spot as per order through the machine. Customers are given fresh coke on the spot on the order of customer. Fresh chilled coke is prepared immediately and is served in glass. As these 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,

                     cc no.289 of 2019

he has placed 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) DLT 459: 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.289 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.289 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