BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.T. Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M. Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Wednesday the 04th day of August, 2010
C.C. No.93/09
Between:
T. Venkatesh Babu, S/o. T.Venkata Swamy,
Door.No.25-37, Kothapeta, Atmakur, Kurnool District-518 517. ..Complainant
-Vs-
Madhavi Restaurant & Bar, Represented by its Proprietor cum-licensee,
D.No.45/116, Opp. Railway Station, N.R. Nagar, Kurnool-518 002. …Opposite Party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Azmathulla, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri.Ch.Joga Rao, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.93/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 R/W Sec. 2 (1) g & 2 (1) ( r) of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to pass an award in favour of the complainant and against the OP
(a) to award Rs.52/- towards the amount excessively charged by the OP
(b) to award Rs.4,00,000/- for causing mental agony and for compensation for damaging the reputation of the complainant .
( c) to award Rs.500/- towards notice charges.
(d) to award costs of this complaint.
(e) and to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
- The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant visited the Bar & restaurant of the OP on 01-05-2009 to purchase liquor . The OP has charged Rs.360/- for the bottle and also issued a bill. The MRP printed on the label of the bottle was Rs.308/- . The OP has charged more than MRP which is printed on the bottle. The complainant objected for charging more than MRP printed on the label of the bottle. The complainant got a registered notice to OP and requested to refund the excess amount charged under the bill. The OP received the said notice and kept silent. Hence the complaint.
- OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has to prove that the bill was issued by the OP. In every bar the menu card will be supplied to the customers to know the price of liquor. It includes the service charge, sitting charge etc., In restaurants and Bars liquor would be supplied in peg system only. The MRP rate mentioned on the label of the bottle is not applicable to the bars. The service charges are included in the bills issued by the bars. There was no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A3 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP is filed.
5. Heard arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of OP ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to any relief ?
- To what relief?
7. Points No.1 & 2 :- Admittedly the OP is a Bar & Restaurant . It is the case of the complainant that on 01-05-2009 he visited the bar and restaurant of OP and that the OP charged excess price than MRP price printed on the label of the bottle purchased by him. It is further case of the complainant that OP issued Ex.A1 bill. The complainant filed Ex.A2 label showing the MRP price of the liquor bottle. It is the specific case of the OP that Ex.A1 bill was not issued by it and that there is no relationship between the complainant and OP. As seen from Ex.A1 and A2 it is very clear that excess price was collected from the complainant. The complainant in his sworn affidavit stated that he visited the Bar and Restaurant of the OP and that Ex.A1 bill was issued by OP. The OP in his sworn affidavit denied that Ex.A1 bill was issued by it. The complainant has not chosen to file the affidavit evidence of any independent person to show that Ex.A1 was issued by OP on the respective date. Unless it is establish that Ex.A1 was issued by OP, the OP cannot be held responsible. The complainant could not establish that he visited the bar and restaurant of the OP and that the OP issued the bill Ex.A1. Therefore the OP cannot be made liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. There was no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
8. Point No.:3 In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case both parties to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 04th day of August, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bill dated 01-05-2009 issued by the OP.
Ex.A2. Label showing the actual price of whisky bottle
Ex.A3. Office Copy of Legal Notice dt.08-05-09 along with postal ack.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Photo copy of License (Form-2B)
Ex.B2. Photo copy of Menu card.
Ex.B3. Reply notice dt.15-05-2009.
Ex.B4. Letter to counsel for complainant dt.15-05-2009 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on:
