IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 315/08 DATED 11.12.2008<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Ananth.A.S., No.954, Prakruthi, 4/8th Main Road, E & F Block, Ramakrishna Nagar, <br /> Mysore-570022.<br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite parties 1. The Board of Director, Pai Vista, A Unit of Pai Vaibhav Hotels (India) Ltd., NO.35/A, Bangalore Nilgiri Road, Mysore-570001.<br /> 2. The Manager, Pai Vista Hotel Bangalore Niligir Road, Opp. Sub Urban Bus Stand, <br /> Mysore-570001.<br /> (By K.Rajesh Pai, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 16.10.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 07.11.2008<br /> Date of order : 11.12.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 4 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has come up with this complaint against the opposite parties in brief is, that he on 04.10.2008 went to the second opposite party hotel ordered for certain food and acquafina mineral water bottles and when he got the bill for the items he purchased he noticed the second opposite party has charged Rs.30/- per acquafina water bottle as against maximum retail price of that bottle Rs.13/- as printed on it. When he questioned the second opposite party about it he told him that some other hotels in the city are charging Rs.45/- per bottle and they are only charging Rs.30/- and thereby rejected his claim and thus the complainant has stated that the opposite parties are indulged in illegal practice to gain more profit, therefore has prayed for taking immediate action in this matter as a warning to the other business houses who are making illegal profit.<br /> 2. This Forum after considering the grievance of the complainant, ordered issue of notice only to the second opposite party, as first opposite party is only Board of Directors, finding that second opposite party has billed the complainant for higher charges. The second opposite party who has been duly served has appeared through his advocate, but failed to file version and to defend the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence besides producing a copy of the bill issued by the second opposite party. Heard the complainant who is in person and perused the records.<br /> 4. The complainant in support of his grievance, that the second opposite party has charged him Rs.30/- per 1 lit. of acquafina water bottle as against maximum retail price of Rs.13/- has produced a copy of the bill he was given by the second opposite party and also sworn to an affidavit narrating the illegal charging of water bottle by the second opposite party and their indulgence in this unfair trade practice. The complainant has also produced 1 lit. of acquafina purified water bottle to demonstrate the maximum retail price of that water bottle is only Rs.13/-, wherein the second opposite party has charged him Rs.30/- per bottle. On perusal of the affidavit evidence of the complainant, the bill he has produced and the sample sealed water bottle conclusively prove that the second opposite party has charged the complainant at Rs.30/- per 1 lit. of purified water bottle as against maximum retail price of Rs.13/-. The second opposite party who is served with the notice though appeared through an advocate but has failed to put up any defense to defend the action of the complainant. The bill issued by the second opposite party and produced by the complainant do not show the justification for this second opposite party in charging the water bottle more than the MRP rate. Therefore, in the absence of any reasonings or explanation of the second opposite party to convenience this Forum about his justification to charge more, we have no hesitation to hold that the second opposite party could not have charged the water bottle more than the maximum retail price printed on it. The cost charged per water bottler as compared to the maximum retail price is exorbitant and that proves the indulgence of the second opposite party in unfair trade practice and amassing profit by exploiting the consumers. This unfair trade practice of the second opposite party is indicative of the fact that the second opposite party is in the habit of charging so exorbitantly and has earned huge profits, which is against the Mandatory Printing of Cost of production and Maximum Retail Price Act, 2006. It is evident that the second opposite party attempted to justify his action by telling the complainant that the other hotels are charging more than that and therefore their charges are not higher than the others. With this attitude we have no hesitation to hold that innumerable number of consumers have suffered in the hands of this second opposite party. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are require to direct the second opposite party to pay certain amount as damages to the complainant and also to remit certain amounts to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum considering the injury suffered by large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently and to further direct the second opposite party not to continue this type of charging and not to involve in such an unfair trade practice. With the result we pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The second opposite party is directed to refund Rs.34/- being the excess amount charged for 2 bottles of mineral water to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 3. The second opposite party is also directed to pay damages of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 4. The second opposite party shall also remit a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 5. The second opposite party is directed to stop the practice of charging mineral water bottles sold in their hotel more than the maximum retail price printed on them.<br /> 6. The second opposite party in the event of failure to pay the amount mentioned above within the period of 30 days it shall pay interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 7. If the second opposite party failed to stop selling of mineral water bottles more than the maximum retail price printed on them immediately after receipt of the copy of the order, he shall remit a sum of Rs.1,000/- p.d. to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order till the date of stopping such unfair trade practice.<br /> 8. The second opposite party shall pay Rs.500/- to the complainant being the cost of this complaint.<br /> 9. 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 11th December 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />