Case No.CC/56/14

Date of Institution:-    24.01.2014

Order Reserved on:-07.05.2024

Date of Order:-            20.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. MRS. SANYUKTA TRIPATHI

W/o Mr. AnupamTripathi

2. MR. ANUPAM TRIPATHI

S/o Mr. Prakash Chandra

Both R/o B-55, Retreat Apartment,

20, I. P. Extension, Patparganj,

Delhi – 110092.

          …..Complainants

VERSUS

KYLIN PREMIER

C/O WELGROW HOTEL CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.

R-302, Third Floor,

Ambience Mall, Vasantkunj,

New Delhi – 110070.

..…Opposite Party

O R D E R

DR. HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER

1. Briefly statedthe facts of the case are that the complainant, alongwith her husband (complainant no.2), visited the OP Restaurant on 29.07.2012 for a meal. Disappointed with the food quality and servicesat the OP Restaurant, she posted a critical review of her experience at the OP on a popular food website.
2. Complainant no. 1 alleges that the owner of the OP Restaurant, Mr. SaurabhKhanijo,wrote back after reading her review on the website, apologizing for ruining her afternoon and inviting her to a complimentary meal, which she did not pay heed to at the time. He contacted her via email dated 30.07.2012in an attempt to make it up with the complainant andagain insisted that she bring along 10 people for free meal and drinks. However, the complainant was not inclined to take him up on the offer.After several calls and communications, complainant no.1,acceding to the repeated requests of the owner of OP restaurant, informed the OP on 09.09.2012 that she would be visiting the OP restaurant for a meal with her husband (complainant no.2).
3. The complainant and her husbandvisited the OP restaurant and weregreeted by the OP and the Chef, after which a lavishmeal was served to her and her husband. On finishing the meal, complainant no. 2 askedfor any bill as a courteous gesture, after which bill no. B023793 amounting to Rs.7,173/- (Rupees Seven Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Three) was handed to the complainants.
4. Surprised at the about-face by the OP, the complainant called for the manager and apprised her that the complainants had been invited to try the food and rate it; hence, the meal was complimentary. Her request was denied, and complainant no. 2 paid the bill under protest.
5. The complainants state that she suffered from significant embarrassment, humiliation and mental agony at the incident and hence sent a legal notice dated 03.10.2012 to the OP requesting the OP to address their concern. The OP, however, sent a reply on 19.10.2013 without taking any responsibility for their deficient service. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service,praying for directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.7,173/- (Rupees Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Three), Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges. 
6. The complainants have filed the copy of the legal notice sent to the OP as Annexure C-1 as well as the reply dated 19.10.2012 towards said legal notice as Annexure C-2, copy of bill dated 09.09.2012 amounting to Rs.7,173/- as Annexure C-3andcopy of the review posted by the complainant on the food website alongwith the reply of OP restaurant owner as Annexure C-5 to corroborate their averments as made in the complaint.
7. On notice, the OP has filed the reply denying all the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint, stating therein that in view of the bad experience of the complainants, the OP had invited complainant no. 1 to their restaurant.However, it was never communicated over emails or calls that the food would be complimentary and the OP would bear the cost. Thus, the bill was generated for the food and beverages. The complainantshad ordered the food and drinks on their own.  
8. A flat 20% discount on the bill amount was given as a goodwill gesture,noting that the previous experience of the complainants at the OP restaurant was unsatisfactory, which the complainant accepted without protest and rather complemented the OP on the quality of the food and service. The OP claims that the complainants misinterpreted the words "inviting you on us" to meancomplimentary food for which the OP would bear the bill, while the OP had merely invited the complainants to the restaurant to provide better services.
9. The complainants filed their rejoinder and separate affidavit in evidence, reiterating what they had stated in their complaint. The OP filed the affidavit of Mr. Anmol Kumar, authorized signatory of the OP restaurant, who also repeated the averments made in the reply. Both the parties, thereafter, filed their written arguments.
10. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the OP on the date fixed for final arguments, giving the complainants the liberty to address arguments within 5 working days before the Commission and the order was reserved. None appeared for the complauiants to do the needful. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have also perused the documents filed by the contesting parties.
11. We find that the complainants visited the OP restaurant on 29.07.2012 for a Sunday Brunch and were disappointed with the quality of food and service at the OP restaurant. Complainant No. 1 posted an unfavourablereview of her experience at the OP restaurant on the popular food website. The owner of the OP restaurant, Mr. SaurabhKhanijo, responded to her review and posted a response as reproduced below:

"hiSanyukta, Sincere apologies for the bad experience at Kylin yesterday. Before I justify anything let me go to the bottom of problem as it seems we really messed up your afternoon. Would request you if you could tell the me where you were seated? would appreciate if you could call me on my id saurabh@welgrowgroup.com . Though I don't have enough words to make up for your bad experience but would request you to give us a chance n for the same i will take the opportunity of inviting you on us whenever convenient with you. It will be really nice if we could communicate on fone. sincere apologies again would look forward hearing from you"

12. The complainant has alleged that the owner of the OP Restaurant, Mr. SaurabhKhanijo, repeatedly called her to invite the complainant and her husband to visit the OP restaurant for a meal along with other people. The complainants visited the OP restaurant at the request of Mr. SaurabhKhanijoon 09.09.2012 under the impression that they were invited by the owner of the OP restaurant for a complimentary meal in lieu of their earlier unsatisfactory experience.
13. But, despite the owner and the chef meeting with the complainants and sending over several dishes, which the complainant found to be excessive, the OP staff handed over a bill of Rs.7173/- to the complainants.Complainant no. 2 paid the bill under protest as the complainants felt humiliated by their experience regarding the payment of the bill when they had been expressly invited for a complimentary meal by the OP's owner so that complainant no.1, who is a food critic wouldgive a glowing review of the OP restaurant. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 03.10.2012 to the OP, who denied ever offering a free complimentary meal.
14. The OP has denied the claim of the complainants that such a promise of a free complimentary meal and no bill to be paid was ever committed to the complainants. Instead, it was the complainants who, after being taken proper care of by the staff of the OP, acknowledged and appreciated the good quality of the food and drinks served to them.A legitimate bill amounting to Rs.7173/- was raised as per the food and beverages ordered by the complainants with a 20% discount as a goodwill gesture. Hence, no deficiency of service can be attributed to the OP.
15. In our considered view, a bare perusal of the response to the complainant no. 1's review on the popular food website by Mr. SaurabhKhanijo wherein he has mentioned that "Though I don't have enough words to make up for your bad experience but would request you to give us a chance n for the same i will take the opportunity of inviting you on us whenever convenient with you."In this sentence, the words "inviting you on us…"needs clarification. It is from these words that the complainants deducted that they were being invited for a complimentary meal by the OP.
16. The dictionary clarifies the meaning of 'ON (ONE)'asbeing one's responsibility or obligation. Hence, when Mr. SaurabhKhanijo wrote to complainant no. 1 that he was inviting you on us, it was tantamount to the OP restaurant's owner taking responsibility for providing the free service/meal to the complainants. Hence, the OP cannot escape the responsibility for their invitation, which was made on the online website by the owner himself.
17. Further, no written communication has been filed by the OP to clarify that complainant no. 1, who had acceded to the request of the owner of OP restaurant, wasinformed that the bill was to be paid by her.Hence, we allowthe complaint in light of the discussion above and direct the OP to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the complainants towards compensation for mental agony caused to them. No other order as to cost.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 20.05.2024.