Punjab

Sangrur

CC/399/2017

Minali Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Origin Cinemas - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vineet Duggal

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 399                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:    08.08.2017                                                                                  

                                                                   Decided on:     01.12.2017

 

Manali Gulati aged about 40 years wife of Sh.Puneet Gulati, resident of Bhalla House, Bhalla Street, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.        

                                                …. Complainant

                               

                                        Versus

 

Origin Cinemas, Inside Fun Square, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Authorized Signatory. 

 

                                              ….Opposite party.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Vineet Duggal Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY                     :      Shri Rajnish Verma, Advocate

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sarita Garg, Member

 

1.             Manali Gulati, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she alongwith her family went to the OP for watching the movie ' Manje Bistre' and purchased a water bottle from the counter of the OP who charged Rs.30/- for the same under  invoice dated 24.04.2017 whereas the MRP of the said water bottle was Rs.20/- . In this way, the OP charged Rs.10/- in excess from the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant  requested the OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.10/-   but OP did not do so. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OP be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.10/- charged along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OP be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections on the grounds of non-joinder, suppression of material facts, cause of action  and maintainability have been taken up. It is denied that the complainant herself purchased the Mineral water bottle from the OP.  It is submitted that there is no mention on the bottle that it is to be given after chilling at the M.R.P. of Rs.20/-  which shows that Rs.20/- is to be charged without chilling it. It is denied  because at the time of sale of mini water bottle the purchaser is told that  ordinary bottle is sold at MRP Rs.20/- and chilled bottle at Rs.30/-.  Hence no overcharge has been obtained from the complainant. Thus, there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the Ops and evidence tendered by the complainant and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complaint has following merits.

5.             The complainant  purchased a water bottle  from the counter of the OP for Rs.30/- when she went there for watching movie ' Manje Bistre' at about 5:15 PM on 24.04.2017 but the MRP of the said water bottle is mentioned as Rs.20/- on it. In this way, the OP has charged Rs.10/- in excess from the complainant i.e. clear from the document Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4 i.e copy of invoice  and  mineral water bottle. The complainant stated that he made efforts to convince the OP to refund  the excess charged amount of Rs.10/-  of the said bottle but the OP refused to refund the same. The OP has taken an objection in its written statement and affidavit that extra amount from the MRP has been charged for the mineral water bottle  for the chilling process and the services given  by their employees  but in rebut of the written statement the complainant has said that there is no employee on the counter to give  the service but by using the self service, the complainant has taken the bottle  from the counter  and went  to the Cinema Hall. There is no glass service to drink the water. So, there is no question arises here to give the service from the employees of the OP.

6.             After hearing the arguments of both the parties , we have come to the conclusion that the excess amount charged by the OP is not tenable because the MRP  on the bottle is Rs.20/- and according to the Mandatory Printing of cost of production and Maximum Retail Price Act, 2006, the OP cannot charge  the excess amount from the MRP of the product. The OP has cited  the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court  of Delhi at New Delhi WP (C) 6517/03 & WP (C) Nos.14691-16927/05  but we find it is not applicable  to the facts of the present complaint . If  there is a question of  chilling then the same is not maintainable  because the label in the bottle itself  said that it had to be stored in cool places and  the best when served chilled, so it does not affect  on the MRP  of the mineral water bottle. In rebut the complainant has cited  the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission namely D.K. Chopra Vs. Snack Bar, 2014(2) CPJ 493 wherein it has been held that a person who purchases ' redbull' energy drink while standing is not obliged to pay the fees which is prescribed for restaurant . OP cannot misappropriate money. Directions issued to OP to deposit Rs.50,00,000/- with Consumer Welfare Fund. Revision petition allowed.  

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain agony harassment and unfair trade practice. We further direct the OP to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum on account of unfair trade practice.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                December 1, 2017

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                          

Member            Member                         President