Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/44/2015

M.Karthick Manickam,S/o.B.Manickam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sangam Cinemas, Rep by its Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

A.Muniraja

02 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  20.02.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  02.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 02^nd DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.44/2015

 

 

M. Karthik Manickam,

S/o. B.Manickam,

9 C8 Block, SAF Games Village,

Koyambedu,

Chennai – 600 107.

                                                                                            …..  Complainant                                                                            

 

..Vs..

 

1.M/s. Sridevi Cinemas (Petitioner) Ltd.,

Represented by its Director Mr. Ramanathan,

Carrying on the business under the name and style of

M/s. Sangam Cinemas,

No.870, Poonamallee High Road,

Kilpauk,

Chennai – 600 010.

 

2.M/s. Sona Foods,

Represented by its Partner Mr.Ramanathan,

No.870, Poonamallee High Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 04.3.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Manudeedhi Consumer &

                                                                    Environmental Protection Centre – rep

                                                                    by its President A.Muniraja Authorised

                                                                   Agent

 

Counsel for  1^st Opposite Party                 : M/s.P.Balathandayutham,

                                                                   B.Senthilkumar   

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                       : M/s. D.Anandakrishnan

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to refund the extra collected amount of Rs.10/- and compensation for unfair trade practice and mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is the cinema theatre. The 2^nd opposite party runs a canteen in the 1^st opposite party’s theatre. On 31.08.2014, the complainant along with his family members went to the 1^st opposite party’s theatre for seeing a movie namely Salim evening show at 7:15 pm. During the interval the complainant purchased popcorn & chicken tikka  from the 2^nd opposite party canteen and he had issued  cash memo receipt for an amount of Rs.140/-. The complainant gave his credit card for the payment of the said amount. The 2^nd opposite party after swiping the card and asked the complainant to sign in the card payment copy. When the complainant about to put his signature, he was shocked and found that the 2^nd opposite party deducted a sum of Rs.150/- instead of deducting the actual amount of Rs.140/-.

          2. The complainant enquired about the extra payment of Rs.10/-. The 2^nd opposite party person evasively replied that it is their usual practise whenever they get the payment through the card. On the next day, the complainant sent a mail dated 01.09.2014 to the opposite party asking details about the extra payment of Rs.10/- to the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant once again sent mail on 06.09.2014 as a remainder. On 12.09.2014 the opposite parties informed the complainant over the phone that the extra amount of Rs.10/- was deducted a transaction charges which includes Rs.1.75/- as airtel network charges and Rs.3.75/- as bank transaction charges. The collection of extra amount of Rs.10/- is an unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to refund  the extra collected amount of Rs.10/- and compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practice with cost of the complaint. 

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party admits that they are running theatre under the name and style of Sangam cinemas and the 2^nd opposite party running a food stall in the theatre. This opposite party has no control over the affairs of the 2^nd opposite party and nothing to do in the food and brewerage is being run by him. The relief claimed against this opposite party is unsustainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of this party. Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4.  WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party admits that the complainant purchased popcorn and chicken tikka and the staff of this opposite party informed the complainant that he has to pay cash Rs.140/-. The complainant wanted to pay the amount by credit card. The staff of this opposite party informed that if he wanted to pay the amount by credit card, he has to pay Rs.150/- including the additional charges namely transaction fee and convenience. At the time of swiping the card the complainant did not raise any objection and signed the payment slip. After signing the payment slip, the complainant is  raising the issue.

          5. On 01.09.2014 the complainant called over the phone and informed the staff of the 2^nd opposite party about the payment of Rs.150/-. The staff informed that he has not raised any objection at the time of signing the payment slip and further payment through credit card has to pay airtel charges, bank charges and service charges and the said amount has been deducted by the bank while paying the amount to the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant sent email on the same day that he wanted to know the reason for payment of Rs.10/-. The staff clearly explained to the complainant, the reason for collecting. This opposite party are entitled for the convenience fee as service charges and the same was informed to the complainant. The other averments are made in the complaint are denied and this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.   

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:    

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

07. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the 1^st opposite party running a cinema theatre in the name of sangam cinemas and the 2^nd opposite party running a food stall in the said theatre and the complainant went to the said theatre on 31.08.2014 with his family members to view the evening show at 7:15 pm and during the interval the complainant purchased popcorn and chicken tikka from the 2^nd opposite party stall and for the said purchase, the 2^nd opposite party staff issued cash memo receipt for Rs.140/- payable by the complainant and the complainant wanted to pay the said amount through his credit card and the staff swiped the card for an amount of Rs.150/- and issued Ex.A2, customer copy to the complainant and there after, there were exchange of mails Ex.A3 to A6 between the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party.

          08. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties that the 2^nd opposite party having issued Ex.A1 cash memo for a sum of Rs.140/- for the food purchased by him, they have collected through his credit card a sum of Rs.150/- instead of actual purchase amount of Rs.140/- and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          09. Admittedly the complainant is liable to pay to the 2^nd opposite party a sum of Rs.140/- as per Ex.A1. According to the 2^nd opposite party  the additional sum of Rs.10/- was collected towards airtel charges, bank charges and service charges in one place of his written version in another place it was pleaded that they are entitled to collect convenience fee as service charges at the time of swiping the credit card. The 2^nd opposite party argued that in the air tickets Ex.B2 to B8, they collect convenience fee and in the same way he has also collected Rs.10/- for that purpose. As contented by 2^nd opposite party the convenience fee was collected in Ex.B2 to B8 Air tickets along with several other charges. Whereas in the case in hand in Ex.A1 the convenience fee of Rs.10/- was not mentioned. Therefore as contented by the 2^nd opposite party, the collection of Rs.10/-  by him cannot be considered payment towards convenience fee.  

          10. The sum of Rs.10/- was collected towards the other charges alleged as the airtel charges, bank charges and service charges. However such charges were not mentioned in the customer copy and hence the sum of Rs.10/- was collected towards airtel charges, bank charges and service charges by the 2^nd opposite party cannot be accepted. The 2^nd opposite party further contended that a notice board as in Ex.B1 was displayed in his shop that convenience charges applicable for the use of  credit cards. The percentage of amount would be deducted as not been mentioned in Ex.B1. further the Ex.B1 notice is not clear as displayed in the notice board. Therefore the contention of the 2^nd opposite party that by virtue of Ex.B1, he is entitled to collect airtel charges, bank charges and service charges is rejected.

          11. The 2^nd opposite party also relied on Ex.B9 that while swiping the credit card the bank is entitled to deduct transaction charges of Rs.10/- as in Ex.B9 and accordingly he had collected Rs.10/- from the complainant. The Ex.A7 mail issued by the HDFC bank to the complainant states that “the Sangam cinemas is not suppose to be charging for swiping Rs.10/- and you are eligible for reversal if they are exactly swiping complaint charges that did not appear on the bill provided”. The HDFC bank itself cleared that the opposite parties are not entitled to collect swiping charges and therefore the contention raised by the 2^nd opposite party in this regard is rejected.

          12. The learned council for the  2^nd opposite party relied on the following orders :

           (1) I (2003)  CPJ 57 MRTP (Mrs.S.S.Ahuja Vs.Pizza Express)

          (2) RP No.817 of 2002  dated 22.03.2004 (Pustak Mahal Vs. Rattan Lal Premi)  (NC) and

          (3) (2009)  1 SCC 230 (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Vs. Director General of Investigation and Registration).

The first two orders of the Hon’ble Commission and the 3^rd referred  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India were perused. The facts in all the aforesaid cases are differs from the facts of the case in hand and hence the same were not applicable to this case.  

          13. Therefore in view of forgoing discussions, the 2^nd opposite party without any authority unauthorized collected the amount of Rs.10/- from the complainant is amounts to unfair trade practice committed by him and thereby committed deficiency in service. However the 1^st opposite party has no control over the collection and selling of food by the 2^nd opposite party in his shop and therefore we conclude that the 1^st opposite party has not committed any deficiency to the complainant. Therefore we hold that the 1^st opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the 2^nd opposite party only committed deficiency in service to the complainant .      

14. POINT NO:2

          The 2^nd opposite party collected a sum of Rs.10 from the complainant by way of unfair trade practice and therefore he is entitled to get refund of the said amount from him. Further to curb this kind of cheap unfair trade practice, a heavy compensation has to be awarded to teach a lesson to the 2^nd opposite party and hence it would be appropriate to direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice and mental agony to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1^st opposite party and other relief is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd opposite party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.10/-(Rupees ten only) towards excess collection and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards unfair trade practice and mental agony to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1^st opposite party and other relief is  dismissed.

          The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 2^nd day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 31.08.2014                   Cash Memo issued by the  2^nd opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 31.08.2014                   Customer copy of the credit card payment slip

Ex.A3 dated 01.09.2014                   E-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite

                                               parties

Ex.A4 dated 06.09.2014                   E-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite

                                                parties

Ex.A5 dated 12.09.2014                   E-mail sent by the opposite parties to the

                                               complainant

Ex.A6 dated 12.09.2014                   E-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite

                                                parties

Ex.A7 dated 08.11.2014                   E-mail from the HDFC Bank

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ……. NIL ……

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL               Board Kept stating convenience fee with charges 3 Nos

Ex.B2 dated 23.07.2013    Jet Airways ticket Collecting convenience Fee

Ex.B3 dated 04.10.2013    Indigo Airways ticket Collecting convenience Fee

Ex.B4 dated 25.05.2014    Indigo Airways ticket Collecting convenience Fee

Ex.B5 dated 26.11.2014    Jet Airways ticket Collecting convenience Fee

Ex.B6 dated 27.05.2015    Spice Jet Ticket collecting convenience fee

Ex.B7 dated 26.08.2015           Jet Airways ticket Collecting convenience Fee

Ex.B8 dated 11.11.2015    Spice Jet Ticket collecting convenience fee

Ex.B9 dated NIL              Statement Extra charges collected while making

                                        payment by credit card

Ex.B10 dated 06.09.2014         E-mail received from the complainant

Ex.B11 dated 12.09.2014  E-mail reply sent by this opposite party to the

                                            complainant

Ex.B12 dated 12.09.2014  E-mail received from the complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT