DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 227
Instituted on: 23.05.2017
Decided on: 25.08.2017
Jasvir Singh Sarao, aged about 37 years son of Bachitter Singh R/o Street No.7, Khalifa Bagh Opp. Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
Hotel Millan, Opp. Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.
…Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri Kuldeep Jain, Adv.
For opposite party : Shri Amit Jain, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Jasvir Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on 07.05.2017 the complainant visited the hotel of OP for taking dinner with his family. The OP served two bottles of Mineral water to the complainant without asking for it and charged Rs.30/- for each bottle and the Op also issued bill number 7.5.2017 for Rs.408/- including VAT and tax, whereas its printed price is Rs.20/- only, meaning thereby the Op charged Rs.10/- in excess than the printed price of the bottle. Nothing happened despite requesting the OP for refund of the excess amount so charged. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to shut down the hotel and further to pay him a compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and further prayed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-.
2. In written reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the Op reserves the right of legal remedy against the complainant. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant visited the OP on 7.5.2017 for dinner. However, it has been denied that the Op charged Rs.30/- each for bottle of mineral water against the printed price of Rs.20/- only. It has been denied that the complainant approached the manager of the OP for refund of any excess amount. It is stated further that the Op sold two mineral water bottles of Bailley make by charging Rs.30/- per bottle as per the MRP of the bottle. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit and Ex.OP-2 affidavit of Kewal and Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-9 copies of documents and Ex.OP-10 empty water bottle of Bailley and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant visited the hotel of the OP on 7.5.2017 for taking dinner with his family and purchased two water bottles for which the OP charged Rs.30/- each, as is evident from the copy of bill dated 07.05.2017, Ex.C-2 on record. Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant to support his allegations in the complaint. In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has not produced any empty bottle on record, but has contended vehemently that the OP had supplied Kinley water bottles the cost of which is Rs.20/- each, whereas the Op charged Rs.30/- each meaning thereby the Op charged Rs.20/- in excess in two bottles of water. On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the OP supplied Belly water the cost of which is Rs.30/- per bottle. But, it is worth mentioning here that the Op has not produced any such supporting evidence to show that the Op is using and supplying the Belly water bottles to its customers nor has produced any copy of the bill showing purchase of the Belly water by the OP. The OP has also produced Ex.OP-3 copy of the bill showing sale of mineral water two bottles @ Rs.30/- each, but we feel that this document is not at all helpful to the case of the Op as it is nowhere mentioned that who was the manufacturer of the water bottle. Moreover, the bills Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-6 produced on record seems to be after thought and created documents as the bill Ex.OP-4 bearing number 831 shows time as 23:13:19, whereas the other bills Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-7 have times 14:59:38, 15:55:52, 17:47:25 and 18:39:13 meaning thereby the same have the back time and not in forward as the time goes forward and not backward. In these circumstances, we feel that the OP has not come to the Forum with clean hands before this Forum. Since it is settled law that a party who does not come to the Forum with clean hands is not entitled to any claim. Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Satyam Cinplexes versus Mark Paul 2006(3) CPJ 12, wherein the OP charged Rs.40/- for a bottle water against the printed price as Rs.12/- only, wherein it has been held by the Commission that hotel, restaurant or Cineplex cannot charge more than price and further it was held to be deficiency in service as OP adopted unfair trade practice and was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in common welfare fund and to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Zaika Bazar versus Hemant Goel 2007(2) CPJ 96, wherein it was held that it is not open for the Op to charge higher price than MRP and punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- were imposed for depositing the same in favour of Consumer Welfare Fund. Further in another case namely, D.K.Chopra versus Snack Bar 2014(2) CPC 418 (NC), wherein the OP charged double price than the printed one i.e. printed price was Rs.75/- whereas the Op charged the price of Rs.150/-, thus the Hon’ble National Commission held it to be a case of unfair trade practice and directed the OP to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and further an amount of Rs.50 Lacs was ordered to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund. We feel that the above citations are fully applicable in the circumstances of the present case.
6. The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the OP has charged nothing excess nor there was any intention on the part of the OP in charging any excess amount, nor the complainant ever brought to the notice of the OP about the excess charging, as such, it is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. But, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OP, more so when, it is proved on record that the OP charged Rs.10/- per bottle in excess from the complainant. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OP that why they charged in excess Rs.20/- from the complainant.
7. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.20/- and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
August 25, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
