BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. Direct the OP to pay the compensation towards unfair trade and practice with mental agony and legal expenditure and physical pain sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at 18% from the date of bill till to realization.
2. Pass such other direction that this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The OP is running bar and restaurant.  The complainant visited the OP restaurant on 13.02.2022 around 7.30 pm to 8 pm and ordered as per the menu maintained by the OP restaurant.  One mash rum dry fry and one Sidus wine.  The OP selling wines beers and other branded hot drinks and supplying within their premises and after that the OP used to give bills to the consumer for making payments on the basis of menu or MRP rates.

3.       The main grievance of the complainant is that after drunk and ate the snacks the complainant has demanded the bill and waiter had handed over the bill to the complainant vide bill No.0071 dated 13.02.2022.  As per the bill the OP had mentioned Tilt Wine-FL.  The complainant asked the waiter and clarified that it is Sidus Wine amount of Rs.230/- per bottle and it is around 120 ml or may be less.  The complainant has verified MRP rate attached to label on the bottle of Rs.140/-.

4.       It is further case of the complainant that he is not disputing comparing price of the wine but in the bill it was mentioned different brand wine that amounting to Rs.230/-. But supplied and consumed wine is Sidus Wine and its MRP price is Rs.140/-.  The OP has wrongly collected the price and is totally unfair trade practice of the OP.  In the same bill it is included one omlet Rs.60/- and mash rum dry fry Rs.165/- excluding tax have been imposed.

5.       It is further case of the complainant that the OP had charged the other wine amount than the supplied wine in the bill and he has misguided the consumer for extracting money other than the supplied goods or material.  This is totally opposed to the law. The OP has mentioned in the bill as Tilt Wine-FL but the complainant has ordered and consumed the wine is Sidus. The complainant was utterly shocked and he paid the entire amount as per the bill without any arguments.

6.       After that the complainant sent a notice on 28.02.2022, but it was returned as not claimed.  After that he has filed this complaint, since the act of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and in view of this the complainant suffered mental agony and legal expenses and other expenses.

7. In response to the notice, OP appears and filed his version.  
8. The OP has admitted that he has running the bar and restaurant in the above address and further admitted that the complainant visited his restaurant on 13.02.2022.
9. It is the specific contention taken by the OP that the complainant has ordered for tilt wine-FL cost of Rs.230/- per bottle and after consuming wine he demanded the bill and this OP has rightly issued the bill No.0071 amounting to Rs.230/- per bottle.  The complainant has paid the bill amount without making any protest and after that he has filed this complaint only for the purpose of harassing this OP.
10. The OP has denied all the other allegations made by the complainant that he has ordered for Sidus wine amounting to Rs.140/- and he has consumed Sidus wine.
11. The OP further denied that he had wrongly collected the bill amount of Rs.230/- from the complainant instead of Rs.140/-.  It is also the case of the OP that the complainant filed this complaint only for the purpose of making a case and harassing and extracting money illegally from the OP.  Therefore OP prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
12. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 06 documents.  Affidavit evidence of OP has been filed and has not relied any documents.
13. Heard the arguments of both the parties.  Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.
14. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

15. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Affirmative

      Point No.2: Affirmative in part

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

16. Point No.1 AND 2: Perused the complaint, version, evidence and arguments and documents and evidence relied on both the parties.

17. It is undisputed fact that the OP maintaining bar and restaurant in the name and style as M/s King Fish The Restaurant.  The complainant being a practicing advocate visited the OP bar on 13.02.2022 at around 7.30 pm to 8 pm and ordered one bottle Sidus Wine along with one mash rum dry fry.  The OP bar suppliers supplied the Sidus wine with the items ordered by the complainant. The complainant after taking drinks and also ate all the items ordered by him has demanded for the bill.  The OP restaurant have issued the bill No.0071 dated 13.02.2022 mentioning that they have supplied Tilt Wine-FL and the cost of the wine is Rs.230/- per bottle.  Even though the OP have supplied Sidus wine and the cost of the wine bottle is only Rs.140/- but they have mentioned Tilt Wine FL in the bill and collected Rs.230/- and thereby the OP have practiced unfair trade practice.

18. On the other hand the only contention taken by the OP is that they have supplied the Tilt Wine-FL worth Rs.230/- per bottle.  They have denied that the complainant has ordered for Sidus wine amounting to Rs.140/- and they have supplied Tilt Wine-FL amounting to Rs.230/- per bottle.

19. On this back ground we have perused the documentary evidence. The Ex.P2 is the    receipt issued by the OP bar and it is admitted by both the parties. Ex.P3 is the copy of the legal notice and Ex.P4 is the unclaimed postal cover with receipt. Ex.P5 is the photo of the Sidus wine and Ex.P6 is the GST registration of the OP bar.  
20. On the other hand even though the OP proprietor has filed his affidavit evidence has not produced any documents, but they have simply denied the case of the complainant.

21. If really the complainant has not ordered for Sidus wine amounting to Rs.140/- and he has ordered for Tilt Wine-FL amounting to Rs.230/- the OP would have produced any documents before this Commission. They would have produced the CCTV footages maintained in their restaurant or they would have produced any other documents to show that they have supplied only Tilt Wine-FL amounting to Rs.230/- and not Sidus wine.

22. When the complainant has produced the photo of the wine bottle with receipt Ex.P2 it is clear that the OP has ordered for Sidus wine and the same was supplied to him.  When the OP restaurant issued the bill they have charged for Tilt Wine-FL even though the complainant neither ordered nor drunk the Tilt Wine-FL and wrongly collected Rs.230/- instead of Rs.140/- for the wine.

23. When the complainant has produced all the documentary evidence and lead oral evidence the burden shifts on the OP to establish the wine ordered by the complainant is only Tilt Wine-FL and not Sidus wine and they have rightly collected Rs.230/- instead of Rs.140/- for the wine.  The OP failed to establish their contention. On the other hand, the complainant has clearly established the mischief and the unfair trade practice by the OP in their restaurant. The OP has supplied one item for a meager amount and issued the bill for higher amount even though they have not supplied the said item to the consumer.  Hence the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in this complaint. Hence we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.

24. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed to pay Rs.90/- excess amount charged and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.
3. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 17^TH day of JANUARY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL