DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 335 of 20.8.2018

                                      Decided on:           25.7.2019

Joginder Bansal son of Sh.Ram Tej Bansal aged about 20 years, resident of Ward No.5, Shiva Enclave, Nabha Colony, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.     

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Hotel Adarsh Palace, Patiala Road, Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member      

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.M.L.Sharma,Advocate, Counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Party Ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. This complaint is filed by Joginder Bansal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Hotel Adarsh Patiala (hereinafter referred to as OP) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the OP is dealing with hotel business and complainant with his friends availed the services of OP for lunch on 11.8.2018. OP issued bill bearing No.3414 dated 11.8.2018 amounting to Rs.557/-(including GST).
3. It is contended that the complainant was aware that maximum retail price of mineral water  of any company is about Rs.20/-.Complainant checked mineral water bottle served by the OP. It was also of Rs.20/- MRP printed on the bottle of Parley company, but the OP in the bill charged Rs.35/- for the mineral water bottle instead of MRP of Rs.20/-.The complainant requested the hotel manager that he cannot charge the rate more than MRP and asked to charge the mineral water bottle rate as per MRP Rs.20/-instead of Rs.35/-.But OP misbehaved with the complainant and said that he will charge the rate as per bill. There is no MRP in this hotel. Due to misbehaviour of OP, complainant felt  humiliation and insulted amongst friends.
4. It is also contended that the act of the OP  to charge the rate more than MRP and to misbehave and insult the complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony.
5. In the sequel of these facts  the complainant has prayed as under:

1. To refund the amount of Rs.15/-(charged more than MRP)
2. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. To pay Rs.7700/-as the cost of litigation .

6. On notice, Sh.Gaurav Garg, Prop. of OP No.1 appeared in person and the case was adjourned for filing written version. On subsequent dates of hearings i.e. 22.10.2018, 14.11.2018 and 5.12.2018, none appeared on behalf of the OP  and as such the OP was proceeded against ex-parte.
7. In evidence the counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.C1 affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents, Ex.C2 copy of bill No.3414, Ex.C3 mineral water bottle, Ex.C4 copy of Aadhar card and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
9. During the course of arguments, the ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the act and conduct of the OP resulted in deficiency of service vis-à-vis unfair trade practice.
10. It is an admitted fact that the complainant visited the OP hotel and availed its services, which fact is corroborated by copy of bill dated 11.8.2016,Ex.C2. The perusal of ibid bill further reveals that the OP has charged Rs.35/- for one mineral water bottle. At the time of evidence the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence the empty bottle of mineral water in question which was kept in sealed box and was exhibited as Ex.C3. We opened the sealed box in the open court and found that below the cap of bottle, Rs.20/- has been engraved with date as 19.4.2017.This clearly reflects that the price of the bottle was Rs.20/- and OP has charged Rs.35/-for the same from the complainant i.e.Rs.15/- in excess of MRP.
11. The question for determination before us whether  charging of any amount over and above the printed / engraved price amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.
12. The bill Ex.C2 itself establish that the OP has intentionally charged Rs.15/- in excess of the printed/engraved price on the bottle,Ex.C3.In spite of objection raised by the complainant, OP instead of rectifying it’s mistake or apologized or regrets remained adamant and charged Rs.35/- and driven the complainant to file this complaint. It could have avoided unnecessary harassment and mental torture to him.

The contentions made in the complaint are supported by affidavit and pleadings made therein remained un-rebutted as such there are no reason to disbelieve the same. Taking into consideration the entire facts and events in its totality, it is established that the OP has charged excess amount of Rs.15/- over and above the MRP and as such indulged in unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service on account of its failure toprovide fair service which is normally expected from the OP.

13. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of which the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made there are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. The Opposite parties did not appear before this Forum despite service and presumption of service was raised and it was proceeded against ex-parte. Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains un rebutted. In view of this all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by the OP and no adverse inference is to be drawn against him.
14. Net conclusion is that the OP deliberately and forcibly charged Rs.15/- over and above the MRP, which amounts to unfair trade practice. Further not providing adequate service and also misbehaviour leads to deficiency in service
15. Thus allowing the complaint, we direct the OP to refund Rs.15/-with another sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation inclusive of costs of causing harassment, inconvenience, mental torture and litigation expenses  within a period of 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
16. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 25.7.2019

                                           B.S.DHALIWAL                  INDERJEET KAUR

                                           MEMBER                              MEMBER