Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.7.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint of the complainant (now respondent) and directed the OP (now appellant) to refund a sum of Rs.150/- charged by it, in excess of the actual price, and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to him (complainant) for insulting and misbehaving with him. It was further directed that the amount shall be paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the OP would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17.2.2010, till actual payment. 2. On 26.10.2009, the complainant, alongwith his family, went to the OP hotel, and placed an order for Assam tea, Cappuccino and one Sprout, keeping in view the menu, provided to him. It was stated that though in the menu, the rate of sprout was mentioned as Rs.200/-, yet in the bill issued to him, he was charged Rs.350/- for the sprout chaat. When the complainant brought the matter to the notice of the Manager, he was insulted. It was further stated that to avoid further humiliation, the complainant paid the total bill amount of Rs.731/- .Thus, he had to pay Rs.150/- extra. It was further stated that these acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, he filed a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only). 3. In the written reply, filed by the OP, it was admitted that the complainant, alongwith his family, visited their hotel. It was stated that as per the menu, the rate of sprout was Rs.200/-. It was, however, stated that the complainant ordered for sprout chaat, menu price of which was Rs.350/-. It was further stated that the complainant was strictly charged, as per the rates, mentioned in the menu. It was denied that the complainant was insulted by any member of the staff of the OP hotel. It was also denied that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint and the passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Appellant/OP 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant and his family members visited the hotel of the OP. He further submitted that the complainant and his family, placed an order for Assam Tea, Cappuccino and one Sprout Chaat. He further submitted that the rate of Sprout Chaat mentioned in the menu, at the relevant time was Rs.350/-. He further submitted that accordingly, an amount of Rs.350/- for Sprout Chaat, as ordered by the complainant, and his family, alongwith the remaining amount for other items, which were supplied to the complainant and his family, was charged. He further submitted that none of the members of the staff of the hotel, ever insulted the complainant, or his family members, but he only concocted a story, and filed a false complaint. He also placed reliance on R-2, a menu for all days from 11.30 am to 11.30p.m. of the OP hotel, in support of his contention. He further submitted that the OP was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum did not properly appreciate the facts and evidence and law on the point, and wrongly accepted the complaint, and awarded relief to the complainant/respondent. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that, undoubtedly, the complainant and his family went to the hotel of the appellant. He further submitted that the menu R-1 was provided to the complainant and his family which was operative from 7.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. He further submitted that, in this menu, no item as Sprout Chaat existed, but, on the other hand, item sprout existed. He further submitted that bill copy whereof is C-1, which was generated at 11.07a.m. was supplied to the complainant, wherein, the price of sprout chaat was charged at Rs.350/-, instead of sprout, ordered by the complainant and his family, the price whereof was shown to be Rs.200/- in R-1. He further submitted that the complainant and his family reached the hotel much before 10.30a.m. and then placed an order, as a result whereof, they finished the items and the bill was generated at 11.07a.m. He further submitted that the complainant came to know of the menu R-2, which was operative from 11.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. for the first time when the same was placed in the District Forum file. He further submitted that since menu R-2 was not operative, at the time the complainant, and his family reached the hotel and placed order, and even by the time, the bill C-1 was generated,the question of ordering and supplying the sprout chaat, as mentioned in the R-2, did not at all arise. He further submitted that even the members of the hotel staff misbehaved and insulted the complainant and his family members, when the complainant raised a protest, as to why, he was charged Rs.350/- for sprout chaat when he had not placed order in respect thereof. He further submitted that the District Forum, was right, in accepting the complaint and awarding the relief. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed , for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It is established, from the record, that the complainant and his family went to the hotel of the OP, much before 10.30a.m. on 26.10.2009 when the menu R-1 was operative from 7.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. There is no item, as sprout chaat, mentioned in R-1, the menu which is in magenta colour. In this document, one of the items is mentioned ‘sprouts’. It was, this menu, which was provided to the complainant. It was also testified, in his affidavit, by the complainant, in regard to the same. It was only on the basis of this menu, that he placed an order for the supply of sprouts and other items. The factum, that the complainant and his family members reached the hotel of the OP much before 10.30 a.m, is further corroborated from C-1, copy of the bill, which was generated at 11.07a.m. Since, the complainant and his family members reached the hotel of the OP before 10.30 a.m. and placed order of sprouts, as mentioned in R-1, and other items, it must have taken some time for the chef to prepare the same with regard whereto the order was placed by the complainant and his family. Thereafter, it must have taken sometime for the complainant and his family members, to take those items. Since, the order was placed before 10.30 a.m. ,the menu R-1 from 7.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. was operative. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant only placed order for sprouts vide menu R1. The second menu R-2, in red colour, was operative from 11.30 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. The complainant and his family members left the hotel premises, much before menu R-2, became operative, and, as such, the question of ordering sprout chaat, as one of the items, therein, price whereof was Rs.350/-, by the complainant and his family members, did not at all arise. No doubt, in the complaint, in para-3, the complainant stated that he placed an order for Assam tea, Cappuccino and one Sprout Chaat. However, in para-4 of the complaint, he made it clear that, in the menu, the rate of sprouts was mentioned as Rs.200/- and he placed the order for sprouts keeping in view its rate and his capacity to pay the same. It may be stated here, that even a well-read person when he goes to a hotel, may not be knowing the names of many dishes/items. He may not be able to distinguish between various dishes/items, on account of their different names. The confusion which was created in para NO.3 of the complaint, was duly clarified in para No.4 thereof. This confusion was also clearly dispelled from R-1, menu which was operative from 7.00a.m. to 10.30.p.m. and C-1 copy of the bill dated 26.10.2009 generated at 11.07a.m. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that by charging the excess price of Rs.150/- in respect of sprouts, for which the order was placed, the appellants indulged into unfair trade practice. 11. The complainant is a resident of Patiala. He had come to Chandigarh with his family and decided to take refreshment in the OP hotel, which may be costlier hotel in Chandigarh. A person who can go to such a costlier hotel alongwith his family, very well knows that a substantial amount is required for payment, as the items, supplied by such hotel, are very costly. Had he placed the order for sprout chaat, he would have been the last person to raise any grudge or grievance that he only placed the order, in respect of sprouts and, as such could not be charged more amount. He protested only, when the OP illegally charged the price of sprout chaat, for which he had not placed order. His protest, in this regard, was justifiable. Instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant, the members of the staff of the hotel, insulted and humiliated him. They misbehaved with him, and also dealt with him, roughly. The complainant, in his affidavit, also testified in this regard. The members of the staff of the OP hotel, by misbehaving and insulting the complainant, were deficient, in rendering service. In B.L. Sood Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation-I (2008) CPJ 23 (NC) and Kunj Behari Mehta & Anr. Vs. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd.-II (2008) CPJ 351 (NC) , compensation was awarded for rough behaviour, by the service provider or their officials. The District Forum, was right, in awarding compensation in this regard, to the complainant. 12. The impugned order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.3000/-. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
