DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 02 of 4.1.2017

                                      Decided on:   26.10.2017

Sikander Tuteja son of Sh.P.R.Tuteja, resident of Hira Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Hotel Clarion Inn Amps., Arjan Complex, Main Sirhind Road, Patiala through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Arun Bansal,Adv.counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party ex-parte

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh.Sikander Tuteja, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party( hereinafter referred to as OP.). The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.       That in order to take dinner alongwith his family , the complainant went to the OP and placed order for 2 Goulash Mutton Soup, 1 Natural Mineral Water(Aquafina ), 3 fresh lime soda, 1 murga tikka masala, 2 butter naan, 2 garlic naan and 1 noorani sheek kebab for which the OP charged  in total Rs.1970/- i.e. Rs.1670/-+ Rs.200/- as vat + Rs.100/-Govt. Service Tax @ 6.00%. It is averred that he was surprised to see that the OP charged Rs.60/- instead of Rs.40/-  for Aquafina Bottle (natural mineral water) which bore batch No.BN-946D18H16, packing date as 18.8.2016 and MRP Rs.40/- 20.:03, supplied by the OP itself. He asked the complainant for the same but he did not give any reply rather insulted him infront of other customers. He also got served a legal notice dated 24.10.2016 upon the OP but the OP did not bother to give any reply to the same. The act and conduct of the OP not only amounted to deficiency in service but it also indulged into unfair trade practice. The complainant also underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint with the prayer for a direction to the OP to tender unconditional written apology to the complainant . It be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of unfair trade practice, Rs.40,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.20,000/- litigation expenses. The Forum also grant any other relief if it deem fit. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice sent to the OP was duly served but it failed to appear and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.

4.       On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant  has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.       The ld. counsel for the  complainant has contended that on 15.10.2016, when the complainant went to have dinner alongwith his family in Hotel Clarion InnAmps i.e. OP, then it charged from  him Rs.60/- for the Natural Mineral water bottle, whereas the MRP of the said bottle was Rs.40/- only. By charging more than the M.R.P. mention on the bottle the OP has committed deficiency in service. In the case of Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India and others Vs. Union of India and Others AIR 2007 Delhi 137, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, on identical facts,  by relying upon  the judgment  of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of H.P vs. Associated Hotels of India AIR 1972 SC 1131,   held that  charging for mineral water in excess of M.R.P. printed on the packaging, during the service of customers in  hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the standard of Weights and Measures Act,1976, as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hoteliers or restaurateurs to its customers. The customer does not enter a hotel or a restaurant for  a simple purchase of a commodity(ies) but his/her intention is also to enjoy the ambiance and comfort provided . In Appeal No.145 of 2016, titled as Brooklyn Central Vs. Jagvir Singh, which was decided on 28.6.2016, the Ho’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.T. Chadigarh,  has also held in the same manner. Thus, in view of the  law laid down by the Superior Fora , we hereby dismiss the complaint, without any order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:26.10. 2017    

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER

.