IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 274/09 DATED 23.09.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Krishnamurthy.B.S., No.235A, Basaveshwara Road, 10th Cross, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore-570004.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. Nagaraj.K.S., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Authorized Person / Manager, <br /> M/s Hotel Rupa, Nakshatra Roof Top, No.2724/C, B-N Road, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.Goutham Chand, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 30.07.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 17.08.2009<br /> Date of order : 23.09.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 6 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.45/-, the excess amount collected and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and further Rs.50,000/- for Unfair Trade Practice to be paid to District Forum.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 27.06.2009, the complainant placed an order with the opposite party for food and beverages, for a pack of Gold Flake, for which the opposite party has charged Rs.60, whereas MRP price is Rs.44/- and bottle of King Fisher, the opposite party charged Rs.110/-, whereas MRP price is Rs.74/-. On enquiry, the opposite party was unable to answer about excess charge. The opposite party demanded payment as per the bill issued. Without any alternate, the complainant has made the said payment. The opposite party, thus in all has charged a sum of Rs.45/- excess. The bill issued by the opposite party does not disclose any charges regarding service or luxury tax. In the absence of the same, the opposite party is not entitled to collect excess amount than the MRP. The opposite party by collecting excess amount has indulged in Unfair Trade Practice. Also, it has indulged in deficiency in service. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in the version has contended that it has rendered the service by complying order and also provides all other facilities available in the restaurant cum bar. The complainant and his friends utilized the service rendered by the opposite party. All other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint are denied.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, the opposite party also filed an affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the material on record.<br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that the opposite party indulged in Unfair Trade Practice by charging excess amount than the MRP and that he is entitled to any reliefs?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Certain facts, such as the complainant had placed an order with the opposite party for supply of Gold Flake King Cigarette and King Fisher, there is no dispute. So also, the MRP and the bill issued by the opposite party and the payment made. <br /> 8. The dispute is excess charge over the MRP. In this regard, contention of the opposite party is that, the bill is issued including the facilities provided.<br /> 9. Learned advocate for the opposite party relied on the order of Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.193/2009 dated 22.07.2009. Wherein, relying on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is observed that, when a consumer enters a hotel and orders for the food and other items, he is also availing other service and facility in the hotel and therefore, charging of excess of bill above the MRP price cannot be held as an illegal act on the part of the hotel. Another ruling of Honb’e Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 6517/2003 etc., dated 05.03.2007 is relied upon. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in paragraph16 has observed that, charging prices for mineral water in excess of MRP during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the SWM Act. 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. <br /> 10. Considering the decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the contention of the complainant that the opposite party indulged in Unfair Trade Practice by charging excess than the MRP and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, for which the opposite party is liable to pay the amount claimed in the complaint, cannot be accepted. <br /> 11. Accordingly we answer the point in affirmative.<br /> 12. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 23rd September 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />