Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/426/2017

Ranjot Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HABIBI, Rembrandt Fashion Hospitality P.L - Opp.Party(s)

Gurbinder Singh Khosa

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/426/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	30/05/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	16/04/2018

 

 

 

 

 

Ranjot Singh son of Sh. Rupinder Singh, resident of House No.152, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

HABIBI, Rembrandt Fashion Hospitality P.L., SCO 14, Sector 26, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

 ……. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	None
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Ranjot Singh has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against HABIBI, Rembrandt Fashion Hospitality Pvt. Limited (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that he went to the premises of Opposite Party on 05.03.2017 for dinner, where the Opposite Party charged him Rs.125/- each for a Diet Coke and Aerated Drink. The Complainant has averred that the same Diet Coke and Aerated Drink is available in the market at a MRP of Rs.35/-. The Complainant accordingly raised his protest for charging extra amount, but to no avail as the Opposite Party did not respond to his grievance. Even the legal notice dated 22.03.2017 served upon the Opposite Party did not yield the desired results. 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 items including Diet Coke and Aerated Drink, which were served to him on his table after adding the flavours in order to change the taste of the drink. The price and rate of Diet Coke, Aerated Drink 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 no protest of any kind was raised by the Complainant at the time of making payment. 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.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record.

 

6.      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.”    

 

7.      The Complainant, resident of Sector 27, Chandigarh volunteered, chooses this Restaurant (HABIBI) in Sector 26, Chandigarh, after driving for about 1 Km., for having dinner to enjoy the ambience of this Restaurant keeping in view the extra comfort, amenities and special services provided by therein. The Complainant could have buy such Diet Coke and Aerated Drink 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.

 

8.      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.

 

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

Announced

16^th April, 2018                                                         

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

       MEMBER