Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/203/2019

Anil Gogna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Holy Smoke Restaurant Pvt. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Vivek Mohan Sharma

08 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	203 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	04.04.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	08.08.2019

 

 

 

 

Anil Gogna son of Late Sh.Gurdial Singh, resident of House No.652, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.  

             ……..Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s Holy Smoke Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.313, 3^rd Floor, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002 through its Managing Director

 

………. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

 

For Complainant      :    Sh.vivek Mohan Sharma, Advocate

For Opposite Party   :    Sh.A.D.S.Jatana, Advocate

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated, the complainant visited M/s. Holy Smoke Restaurant/OP on 6.2.2019 along with family & friends and had Dinner.  Thereafter, the complainant was issued two bills by the OP Restaurant, one for Rs.3835/- including CGST & SGST @2.5% totaling to Rs.182.62 & Service Charge @4% totaling Rs.140.48 (Ann.C-1). The another bill was issued for purchase of Kingfisher Ultra for a sum of rs.293/- including Vat @12.5% totaling to Rs.32.50 and Service charge 4% totaling to Rs.10/- (Ann.C-2).  The complainant objected to the OP for levying of Service Charges in the said bill, but they refused and did not entertain his request and as such, the complainant had to make the payment.  It is averred that the Opposite Party has wrongly & illegally levied and charged Service Charges from the complainant. Hence, this complaint has been filed for refund of amount charged on account of Service Charges and also for compensation on account of harassment alleging the said act of Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant did not raise any issue with regard to nature, quality, quantity of food served to him. It is also stated that neither the complainant nor any of his companions had objected to the service charges and it is an afterthought on the part of the complainant to have raised this dispute before this Forum as no legal notice was issued by the complainant.  It is stated that Opposite Party has striked out the service charges whenever any patron had brought the same to the knowledge of the Manager/Server as the service charge is optional, which fact is duly depicted upon the menu card. It is submitted that charge of ‘Service Charges’, is a nominal fee collected from the customers for the betterment of the establishment and employees thereof and is not chargeable in the form of a statutory tax.  It is submitted that the levy of optional service charges is a fee charged for providing hospitality and services to the customers, like the complainant and forms part of conditions of admission as it is conspicuously displayed on the Menu as well as other places within the establishment. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record.

 

6]       M/s. Holy Smoke Restaurant/Opposite Party admitted to have charged Rs.140.48/- & Rs.10/- as Service Charges @4% in Two Bills (Ann.C-1 & C-2) from the complainant, though the payment of Service charges is optional, depends upon the will of the customer. 

 

7]       The Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) vide its Letter No.J-24/9/2014-CPU(Pt), dated 14.12.2016, addressed to The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection of all States/UT Governments, has clarified that the Services Charges are discretionary/voluntarily  and a consumer dissatisfied with the service can have waived it off.

 

8]       The contentions raised by the Opposite Party in its reply that the complainant never raised any objection to the levy of service charges in the bills, at the time of presentation of bill in the Restaurant, is unacceptable and obviously a lame excuse to justify the unauthorized levy of service charges.  A consumer when presented with such frivolous charges added in his bill after dinning out, can never dare to resist the payment of the same in mid of other sitting customers in the Restaurant.  The Restaurant/Opposite Party did not ask for any option from the customer/complainant before levying of services charges in the bills.  In most of cases, the Restaurants like Opposite Party added the service charges in the bill at their own and present it to the customer for payment, which under the prevailing scenario, the customer, having no alternative rather abstain from creating any scene in the restaurant area, pay for it without any protest.  This practice of Opposite Party is highly condemnable.  The Opposite Party has placed on record a list of cases where they allowed waive off the service charges when the customer raises objection to their demand.  This plea of the Opposite Party is totally unfounded and unjustified.  Though the OP Restaurant alleged to have waived off the services charges on raised protest by many customers, but instead the Restaurant should ask for the option of the customer whether he/she like to pay any tip or charges in lieu of any special service of Waiter or to restaurant staff before raising the bill.  Therefore, the service charges charged by the Opposite Party to the tune of Rs.140.48 +Rs.10/- (Total Rs.150.48) from the complainant is held to be unjustified, which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.

 

9]       Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, as put forth in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite party to pay back Rs.150/- to the complainant along with an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the unnecessary harassment suffered by him.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

          Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules.

Announced

8^TH August, 2019                                                          

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Om