Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/34

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Connaught Plaza Restaurants - Opp.Party(s)

Kashmir Singh

07 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 34 dated 21.01.2021.                                                Date of decision: 07.06.2022.

 

Amandeep Sigh aged 37 years son of Shri Sukhwinder Singh, resident of House No.59, Street No.2, Varinder Nagar, Near Daffodils School, Ward No.1, Boura, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant 

•  

M/s. Cannaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., Unit NO. Ground Floor, 5-B, Goverdhan City Centre, Jagraon Bridge, Ludhiana through its Director/Manager/Authorized Person.                                                                                                                                                        …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Kashmir Singh, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. V.K. Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 07.12.2020, the complainant placed an order No.335 dated 07.12.2020 for home delivery of food items such as Pizza McPuff, PcSpicy Pnr Wrap for total sum of Rs.252/-. The OP raised an invoice of Rs.266/- which included Rs.12/- on account of GST and the payment was made through Paytm. The complainant had ordered vegetarian items. However, the OPs under some wrong impression delivered non-veg items to the complainant. As a result, the complainant lodged a complaint with the OP and realizing its mistake, the OP offered to send vegetarian items on the same day. The complainant returned non-veg items and awaited for the delivery of the vegetarian items but the same were not delivered. When the complainant made a call on mobile number of the OP, the official of the OP not only misbehaved with the complainant but also abused him. The complainant retained the audio recording of the conversation with the official of the OP. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. In the end, it has been requested that the OP directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, initially the OP did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte. However, subsequently the OP appeared through counsel and filed an application for setting aside exparte proceedings which was allowed vide order dated 30.09.2021 and the OP was ordered to join the proceedings.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CW1 along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex- C3 and Ex. C3/1 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amardeep Singh, the authorized representative of the OP along with documents Ex. R1/1 and Ex. R1/2 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OP has contended that the complaint is false and frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. The counsel for the OP has contended that the complainant has nowhere alleged that he consumed the non-veg items delivered to him. He has further contended that no evidence has been produced on record that the items delivered to the complainant were non-vegetarian. Moreover, the complainant himself is admitting in the complaint that the mistake was committed by the OP bonafidely and there was no malafide intention. Therefore, according to the counsel for the OP, the complaint is not maintainable.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the delivery of non-vegetarian items instead of vegetarian ordered by the complainant definitely makes out a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP for which OP is liable to be penalized.

8.                Having weighed the contentions of the parties and after going through the record, it emerges that in the invoice Ex. C1 the first item is mentioned as Pizza McPuff and the second item is mentioned as McSpicy Paneer Wrap. Presumably, Paneer Wrap is supposed to be a vegetarian item. As regards the Pizza McPuff, it is not clearly mentioned in the invoice whether the same is vegetarian or non-vegetarian. It is a matter of common knowledge that on the outlets of fast food items, some items can be purchased/obtained in vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian as per the choice of the customer. In such cases, it is the duty of the outlet owner to at least mention in the invoice whether the customer ordered a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian item. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the complainant ordered vegetarian items. Apart from this, no written statement has been filed by the OP and therefore, the allegations made in the complaint remained uncontroverted. Therefore, it can be safely held that the complainant ordered vegetarian items but the OP inadvertently or under a bonafide mistake delivered non-vegetarian items. Even if there was no malafide intention on the part of the OP and the mistake might have been inadvertent, yet, in our considered view, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP and it would be just and proper if the OP is made to refund the amount of invoice amounting to Rs.266/- along with composite cost of Rs.1500/-.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to OP to refund the amount if invoice amounting to Rs.266/- and OP be further made to pay a composite cost of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Amandeep Singh Vs M/s. Connaught Plaza  Restaurant                     CC/21/34

Present:       Sh. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to OP to refund the amount if invoice amounting to Rs.266/- and OP be further made to pay a composite cost of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.