Date of Complaint : 21.07.2015
Date of Order :24.02.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 302 / 2015
THIS WEDNESDAY 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
G. A.thiyagarajan,
S/o. G.Arumugam,
No.5, Old No.2A,
B.L.N. Prasad Nagar,
Valsaravakkam,
Chennai 600 087. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
M/s. Buhari Hotel, Rep. by its Manager, No.12, 1st Cross Street, Kashturibai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 20. .. Opposite party. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : M/s. Najeeb Usman Khan & other
For the opposite party : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.48.50 and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite party was set exparte on 7.9.2015.
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel.
4. The complainant contended that on 19.5.2014 at 3.00 p.m he along with his friends visited the opposite party’s hotel. At the table, the opposite party had kept a Menu in which the rates of each and every food item had been mentioned. The complainant and his friends ordered food based on their taste and also based on the rates of the items in the said Menu. After completing eating when the opposite party gave the bill the complainant noticed that in the said bill apart from the rate of the food items and the service tax, the opposite party had also mentioned a sum of Rs.48.50 as service charges. Confused by the terms service tax and service charge the complainant informed the opposite party’s Manager that the collection of amount under the caption, service charge is illegal but the opposite party’s Manager replied that the Government insists both the amount under the caption service tax as well as service charges should be collected and remitted to the Government. Further the service charge is being collected in all the eateries in Chennai including all of the opposite party’s Branches and therefore the complainant should also pay service charge.
5. The complainant further contended that he informed the opposite party’s Manager that no tax or fee is collected by the Government under the Heading service charges. But he replied that whatever claimed in the bill was correct and the complainant should pay the service charge also. Hence the complainant was compelled to pay the said service charge but without waiving his right to claim back the said money from the opposite party.
6. The complainant further contended that the Government is not charging any duty or fee under the heading service charges. Therefore collecting service charge is illegal. Moreover the opposite party had not informed the same prior to taking orders from them. The money collected for any food item includes the rate of the food as well as the service of the seller. Anything charged more and above the rate of the food is illegal and actionable. Aggrieved by the collection of the service charge the complainant filed the above compliant for refund of the service charge as well as compensation and cost of the complaint.
7. The contention of the complainant that he ordered certain food items with the opposite party on 19.5.2014 is evidenced through Ex.A1 for which payment was also paid by the complainant as per the bill is also evidenced through Ex.A2 i.e. the Credit card receipt.
8. The main grievance of the complainant is that apart from collecting service tax the opposite party also collected service charge of Rs.48.50 which is evidenced through Ex.A1 i.e. purchase bill. The opposite party is not supposed to collect any such charge independently without informing the same to its customer prior to taking orders. Hence collecting such charges is illegal.
9. On perusing the records, at present there is no any documentary proof to show that the opposite party has legally collected the service charge from the complainant. As such the amount collected as service charge in Ex.A1 is not sustainable.
10. Hence the contention of the complainant that no tax or fee is collected by the Government under the heading service charge since the money collected for any food includes the rate of the food as well as the service of the seller and as such anything charged more than that is illegal and actionable is acceptable. Further the opposite party also failed to comply the grievance of the complainant even after receipt of legal notice i.e. Ex.A3 which is also not sustainable.
11. The opposite party also never appeared before this forum to give any contra evidence in order to defend their case.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we decide that the amount of Rs.48.50 collected by the opposite party as service charge is illegal and shows that the said amount is only collected to enrich the opposite party. Hence the opposite party had committed deficiency of service is proved. Therefore the opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.48.50 collected as service charges to the complainant as per Ex.A1. Moreover the opposite party also shall not collect any service charge in future since it is illegal.
13. Due to the above said act of the opposite party the complainant had suffered mental agony is also acceptable as such the opposite party is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant towards mental agony. However the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant and as such he is entitled for only for just and reasonable compensation.
14. Under these circumstance we are inclined to allow the complaint in part and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.48.50 collected as service charge and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.48.50/- ( Forty eight rupees and fifty paisa only) collected as service charge and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above amounts (Rs.48.50 & Rs.10,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24th day of February 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 19.5.2014 - Copy of bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A2- 19.5.2014 - Copy of Credit card receipt.
Ex.A3- 17.6.2014 - Copy of notice from the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A4- - - - Copy of Ack. card.
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
