- M/s. Hello Food, 260-A, Model Town Extension, Opposite Krishna Mandir, Ludhiana, Punjab (Pin Code-141003) through its proprietor/authorized signatory Mr. Dilbag Singh.
- Mr. Dilbagh Singh, proprietor/authorized signatory M/s. Hello Food, 260-A, Model Town Extension, Opposite Krishna Mandir, Ludhiana, Punjab Pin Code-141003 …..Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT
SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Manjit Singh Rekhrao, Advocate.
ORDER
PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
1. Heard. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 29.12.2021, the complainant purchased a cheesy burger from the store of the OPs. In the menu card, the rate of the burger was mentioned as Rs.55/- but the complainant was charged Rs.58/- i.e. Rs.3/- extra. When the complainant asked about the extra charges of Rs.3/- but he was told that Rs.3/- had been charged on account of GST. However, it was not mentioned in menu card or display board that SGT would be charged extra. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, a prayer for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- has been made.
2. Along with the complaint, the complainant has placed on record the copy of invoice in which the price of burger is mentioned as Rs.55/- and Rs.3/- has been charged on account of SGST and CGST. The grievance of the complainant is that on the menu card or anywhere else it was not displayed that the taxes would be extra or in addition to the price mentioned in the menu card. However, in our considered opinion if the GST is payable on the food items served or carried away from restaurant and it attracts payment of GST, a restaurant owner is not supposed to display either in the menu card or anywhere else in the restaurant or the outlet that the GST would be extra. Once the item is taxable under GST regime, the tax has to be added and paid in the bill. It is not the case of the complainant that GST was not payable on the food item purchased by him. It is only in case of pre packaged item on which MRP is mentioned that the amount of taxes is supposed to be included and beyond MRP no shopkeeper charges the tax from the customer. However, it is not so in the instant case as the complainant purchased a burger on which a tax of Rs.3/- was imposed which is as per the Goods and Service Tax Act. Therefore, prima facie it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
3. The counsel for the complainant has relied upon 2015(4) C.P.R.5 in LIC of India and another Vs Citizens Rights Association (Regd.) and others passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. We have gone through the judgment relied upon by the Hon’ble National Commission which deals with a case of misleading advertisement. We are afraid that the law laid down in the cited case cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed at preliminary stage. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to 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:02.09.2022.
Gobind Ram.
Karamveer Singh Vs Hello Food CC/22/175
Present: Sh. Manjit Singh Rekhrao, Advocate for the complainant.
Heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed at preliminary stage. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room but after registering the same.
(Jaswinder Singh) (K.K. Kareer)
Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:02.09.2022.
Gobind Ram.
