Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/327

Narinder Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Food Book Cafe - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Verma Adv

22 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 327 dated 08.07.2021                                                         Date of decision: 22.07.2021. 

Narinder Goyal son of Shri Ram Kumar, resident of House No.12-13, Rupa Mistri Gali, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.M/s Food Book Café (Chawla Chicken), Barewal Awana, Canal Road, South City, Ludhiana-141012 through its Prop.Sh.Rabsimran Singh Chawla.

2.Rabsimran Singh Chawla, Proprietor M/s Food Book Café (Chawla Chicken), Barewal Awana, Canal Road, South City, Ludhiana-141012.                                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

           Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Sahil Verma, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                The allegations made in the complaint are that on 17.01.2021, the complainant along with his friend reached outside the restaurant of the OPs and bought one bottle of Bailey mineral water for a sum of Rs.42/- vide invoice No.15 dated 17.01.2021. The bottle is manufactured by Parle Agro and on the bottle itself the MRP was mentioned as Rs.20/-. The OPs charged Rs.2/- on account of CGST and SGST. When the complainant pointed out to the Manager of the OPs that they could not charge more than MRP, the Manager refused to listen. The act of the OPs is totally illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice. A legal notice was also sent to the OPs but they refused to receive the same. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed not to charge beyond the MRP and to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation, Rs.2 lac as punitive damages and Rs.55,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.

3.                Admittedly, the OP1 is a restaurant. As per retail bill Ex.C2 the bottle of mineral water is shown to have been sold for Rs.42/- i.e. Rs.40/- plus taxes. It is further mentioned in the retail bill Ex.C2 that the OP is a restaurant in South City, Ludhiana and the complainant was attended to by a waiter namely Kamal on table No.0629. However, in this regard reference can be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India versus Union of India and others-Civil Appeal No.21791 of 2017 decided on 12.12.2017. In this judgment, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 read with the enactment of 1985 or the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, would apply so as to interdict the sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants at prices which are above the MRP. In this very judgment, there is a reference to case law laid down in The State of Punjab vs. M/s Associated Hotels of India Limited (1972)1 SCC-472 and Northern India Caterers (India) Limited vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi-1979(1)SCR-557, whereby it has been held that ‘charging prices for mineral water in excess of MRP printed on the packaging, during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the SWM Act as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hotelier or restaurateur to its customers. It was further observed in this very case as under:-

“ The customer does not enter a hotel or a restaurant to make a simple purchase of these commodities. It may well be that a client would order nothing beyond a bottle of water or a beverage, but his direct purpose in doing so would clearly travel to enjoying the ambience available therein and incidentally to the ordering of any article for consumption. Can thereby any justifiable reason for the Court or Commission to interdict the sale of bottled mineral water other than at a certain price, and ignore the relatively exorbitant charge for a cup of tea or coffee. The response to this rhetorical query cannot but be in the negative. Although the vires of Rule 23 have been assailed, I do not find it necessary to answer that challenge since the provision relates to sales between dealers and neither the hotels and restaurants of the one part and customers of the other falls within this categorization”.

4.                In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid cited case, this Commission is of the considered view that the sale of the water bottle by the OP1 at a higher price than the MRP cannot be said to be deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

5.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is summarily dismissed being not maintainable. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                              (Jyotsna Thatai)                              (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:22.07.2021.

Gurpreet Sharma