DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.350 of 2017
Date of institution: 11.05.2017 Date of decision : 16.09.2020
Gursharan Preet Singh son of S. Tarlochan Singh, resident of House No.2247, Super Enclave, Sector 49-C, UT Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. The Brewmaster E-2, 1st Floor, Defense Colony, New Delhi, India through its authrosied representative/ owner/partner.
2. Authorised person/Partner/Owner/Agent of M/s. The Brewmaster E-2, 1st Floor, Defense Colony, New Delhi, India.
3. M/s. The Brewmaster, SCO No.5-6, 3rd Floor, Phase-5, Mohali through its representative.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that while celebrating his younger brother’s birthday on 15.04.2017, the CC was sitting on table No.6 in the restaurant of OP No.3. It is further averred that the CC ordered a bottle of liquor out of the menu supplied by the OP No.3 and the steward handed over a liquor bottle of Black & White to the CC. It is alleged that after finishing the dinner with the family, the CC was shocked to see the bill wherein Rs.2,395/- were charged from the CC for the bottle of liquor but the MRP mentioned on the bottle was Rs.1,364/-. It is alleged by the CC that Rs.1,031/- was charged extra by OP No.3 as per price mentioned in the menu. The CC tried to convince the Manager of the restaurant that OP No.3 had no right to charge the menu price by ignoring the price mentioned as MRP on the bottle. It is alleged that on hearing this, the Manager forcibly took the empty bottle from the CC and firmly stated that they have charged as per the menu and no illegality is being committed by them. Ultimately the CC had to pay the entire bill to the tune of Rs.6,278/- to OP No.3. It is alleged that OP No.3 arbitrarily and by adopting unethical practice overcharged the amount over the MRP on the liquor bottle which was served as it is to the CC.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought refund of Rs. 1031/- from the OPs along with interest @ 15% per annum plus Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.31,000/- as litigation charges. Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. The OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.02.2019 of this Commission.
3. The CC in support of his complaint tendered in evidence various documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 which includes copy of the bill issued by Op No.3 and photocopy of print of bottle showing maximum retail price on it. CC has further brought on record the menu card as part of his evidence.
4. Since the entire evidence of the CC is on the file and the OP is already ex-parte, we feel that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act which is enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties.
5. Since the entire allegations of the CC are unrebutted, uncontested and unchallenged and the evidence of the CC is also cogent and reliable, we feel, that we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint. It is on the file that CC visited the restaurant of OP No.3 on 15.04.2017 along with his family in order to celebrate the birthday of his brother. It is also on the file that the CC along with food ordered one bottle of liquor of Black and White out of the menu shown to the CC in the restaurant. It is also on the file that when the CC received the bill, he found that OP No.3 instead of charging MRP of Rs.1,031/- mentioned on the bottle itself, charged Rs.2,395/-. It is further on the file that the CC objected to this and raised serious objection with OP No.3 regarding overcharging of price of the bottle of liquor and even brought the matter to the notice of Manager of the restaurant but all his requests and pleadings fell on the deaf ears since he had already noticed the maximum price mentioned on the bottle, which was served as it is to the CC.
6. From the perusal of bill attached with the complaint and other documents, it is writ large on the file that OP No.3 has definitely overcharged the CC by charging Rs.2,395/- for the liquor bottle of Black and White instead of Rs.1,364/- which was the MRP mentioned on the bottle. It is otherwise incumbent upon OP No.3 to charge MRP mentioned on the bottle since the bottle was served as it is to the CC. It is not the case that the liquor was served from the bottle in different quantities or served in glasses by opening the same along with other things. We feel, that OP No.3 had no right to charge Rs.2,395/- extra on the sealed bottle, where the price of the bottle was mentioned as Rs.1031/- which definitely shows huge overcharging on the part of OP No.3 and this act of OP No.3 definitely falls within the definition of unfair trade practice .
7. Since the main grievance of CC is against OP No.3, who is running the restaurant in Phase-5, Mohali where the CC visited with his family, we feel that only OP No.3 is liable to redress the grievance of the CC. Moreover, the CC has not made any allegations against OP Nos. 1 and 2 in the entire complaint and as such no relief can be granted against OP No.1 and 2.
8. In view of our above findings, the present complaint is allowed against OP No.3 only and is dismissed against OP No. 1 and 2. OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.1,031/- (Rs. One thousand thirty one only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt till realization. OP No.3 is further burdened to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only) to the CC. OP No.3 will also pay punitive cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) which will be deposited in the Legal Aid Account set up by this Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order.
9. Further, in order to stop this malpractice prevailing in the restaurants who charge exorbitant amounts from the consumers, on their own, by totally ignoring the rules and law, in order to make huge profits, it is important to put a punitive cost on OP No.3. We feel, that by putting punitive cost, OP No.3 will definitely refrain from indulging into such type of malpractice in future and a clear message in the society will also go that the restaurant owners cannot exploit the consumers in this manner by flouting the rules and law. Accordingly, it is ordered that OP No.3 will also pay Rs. 15,000/- which will be deposited in the Legal Aid Account set up by this Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
September 16, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
