Delhi

East Delhi

CC/679/2015

PANKAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOT INDIAN - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

                  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no. -     679/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution      –       03/09/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on              26/10/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order         -          27/10/2016  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr Pankaj Kumar, adult

S/o – Late Sh Ashok Agarwal   

R/o-121, FF, Priya Enclave,   

Delhi 110092……....………..………………………………..……….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                         Vs

1-M/s Hot Indian Temptations    

(unit of Sagar Ratna)

106 KM, Delhi Agra Road,  

Vill – Aziz pur, Distt.- Mathura, UP

 

2 M/s Hot Indian Temptations   

(unit of Sagar Ratna)

616-617, Devika Tower, Nehru Place

New Delhi 110019…………………………....……………………….Respondents

 

Complainant’s Advocate                             Rajiv Saraswat  

Opponent                                                      Ex Parte 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainants along with seven friends went for eating to OP1 on 08/07/2015 and purchased 5 bottles of Kinley drinking water with food. The entire bill was paid by complainant vide bill no. 14441.

It was submitted that OP had charged extra amount for water bottles against printed MRP of Rs 25/ per bottle. The total bill was Rs 2280/-. In addition to this, OP had charged VAT at the rate of 14% and service tax Rs 5.60%, thus total bill was Rs 2727/-which was paid by him. Complainant objected for paying extra charges on water bottles and lodged complaint through Guest Fed Back Form and also made complaint to restaurant manager, but non gave any importance to the complaint made by him.

Complainant also sent a legal notice on dated 30/07/2015 through speed post to both OPs, but did not get any reply. Complainant filed this complaint claiming Rs 50,000/- for harassment.

Notices were served. None appeared from OP. Case proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed his evidences on affidavit. Arguments were heard and order was reserved.

After perusal of all the facts and evidences on record in this complaint, it has been noticed that complainant had filed one zerox of sticker of water bottle marked as CW1/3. There were no concrete evidence to say that the sticker belong to the same bottle which was purchased from OP as five bottles were purchased. The food bill marked as CW1/1 showed as VAT and service charge taken by OP on entire bill not specifically on water bottles. Guest feedback form marked as CW1/4 showed that complainant along with seven other persons were present at OP hotel but none had signed in protest of extra charges taken for water bottles. There were no other concrete evidence which could prove allegation of extra charges for water bottles taken.

Under the C P Act, 1986, the allegations/deficiency or unfair trade practice of OP had to be proved by the complainant.

 

In this case, complainant had not proved the allegation that OP had taken extra charges on water bottles. Also, mere annexing a sticker of a water bottle could not be said to have from the same bottle purchased from OP counter. There was no expert evidence filed by the complainant on record.

 

So, we come to the conclusion that this complaint is devoid of any merit and deserve to be dismissed with cost, so dismissed with cost Rs 1000/-to be deposited in the Consumer Legal  Aid account maintained by this Forum.  

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member                                             (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                      

 

                                       

                                          Shri Sukhdev Singh - President