| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No.186 of 2-6-2022 Decided on : 18-5-2023 Harmesh Singh S/o Bikar Singh R/o Vill. Bazak Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus PINT House (AIRBAR Brewery Lounge), 7th floor, Big Benn, Okay Plus Tower, Swej Farm Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302007 through its Manager/Owner. United Breweries Limited, Plot No. SP-971, RIICO Industrial Area, Chopanki, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan-301019. (deleted) Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., 4th floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D4, Saket, New Delhi – 110017. ......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM:- Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh. Vikas Kumar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Opposite party No.1 Ex-parte. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 deleted. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:- The complainant Harmesh Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against PINT House and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that being allured by the advertisements of the opposite parties, the complainant decided to visit the sky Bar of the opposite party No.1 along with his friend. It is alleged that while entering the bar, they found that there was no electricity and due to this, the bar room environment was too hot and unhealthy, but the restaurant manager assured the complainant that the electricity will be resumed shortly and the air conditioning system will be functional soon and complainant will not suffer any inconvenience in their bar. On the assurance of the bar manager, complainant along with his friend remained sitted inside the bar room. It is alleged that complainant ordered chilled beers and opposite party No. 1 provided two bottles of kingfisher Premium Lager Beer (330.ML) to the complainant without providing him any glass or beer Mug. Thereafter complainant asked opposite party No. 1 to provide best non Veg food of their bar but after few minutes they disclosed to the complainant that no non veg food available at the bar of the opposite party No.1. The complainant alleged that he and his friend lost their charm of the enjoyment due to non availability of air cooling environment in this hot summer and further due to non availability of Non veg food at the bar but they both were feeling helpless in this situation. Complainant asked the manager that in hoardings or menu card nowhere mentioned that bar provides only veg food to their customers and non veg food not available. Being stuck in the bar room of the opposite party No.1, complainant ordered veg food from the opposite party and on that they served Afgani paneer to the complainant without any cutlery or separate plates and the served food was unhealthy and was not hygiene and too much smelly and due to this they didn't eat the food. It is further alleged that thereafter complainant ordered one more chilled beer from the opposite party No.1 and they served mild chilled beer to the complainant without any glass or beer mug and on the asking of the manager regarding mild chilled beer, he replied that due to non functional of electricity the freezer was out of working hence no chilled beer available. The complainant alleged that served beer was having bitter taste and not a quality product & neither original brand of the manufacturer. That the MRP amount of the product was Rs.75/- (Kingfisher Larger (330ml) and Rs.145/- (Tuborg Strong 650 ML) which are inclusive of all taxes and no other or extra tax will be applicable on the sale of the packaged beers. The MRP amount duly mentioned by the manufacture at the time of manufacturing the product but the opposite party No.1 to 3 by connivance with each other charged extra taxes amounts by imposing various taxes or charges which is against the law and norms. The complainant then decided to leave the bar of opposite party and requested the manager for bill and the bill No.RP1344 issued by the opposite parties by imposing various wrong taxes or charges which reads as under :- Harmesh JI, Table No. BAR.12 Bill No.RP1344 Dated. 28.04.2022 | Invoice Price Breakup |
Item Name | QTY | RATE | AMOUNT | Afgani Paneer Kingfisher Lager (330ML) Tuborg Strong 650 ML Total QTY: | 1 2 1 4 | 379 199 349 | 379.00 398.00 349.00 | Sub Total: 1126 S. Charges 5%= 56% SGST 2.5% On 379:9.48 CGST 2.5% On 379:9.48 Output VAT@20% ON 747:149.40 Surcharge 20% :29.88 Rounf off:46 Net Amount 1381.00 NAME: KULDEEP |
It is further alleged that opposite party imposed various charges or taxes which were not applicable upon the ordered items. They illegally charge various charges or taxes without the consent or knowledge of the various visitors and the said act or conduct of the opposite party shows that they wants to grab more and more profit from their customer by misleading them or by imposing various illegal charges which are not sustainable. The complainant made many requests to the concerned manager for rectifying the bill by reducing the illegal charges but nothing was done by the opposite party No.1. The MRP price of beers which is a packageg product is : Kingfisher Lager (330 ML) Tuborg Strong 650 ML | QNT: 2 QNT:1 | MRP:75/- (Inclusive of All Taxes) Two Bottles= 75x2=150 MRP:145/- (Inclusive of All Taxes) Total:220/- (Inclusive of All Taxes) |
The complainant alleged that opposite party No.1 in connivance with opposite party No.2 & 3 charged more than double amount on the beers from their MRP which is packaged product and inclusive of all taxes. MRP of the said beer bottles in the other outlets in the city was Rs.75/- (Kingfisher Larger (330m1)and Rs.145/- (Tuborg Strong 650 ML) which are inclusive of all taxes and no extra charge or extra tax will be applicable on the sale of the packaged beers but opposite parties charged VAT on Tuborg Strong 650 ML beer of Rs.349/- and Lingfisher Larger (330m1) Rs. 398/- (349+398) which comes out after calculation Rs. 747 and they charged VAT at the rate of 20% on that amount which comes out after calculation as Rs.149.40/-(On Beers). Further opposite party No. 1 charged service charges at the rate of 5% which comes to Rs.56.30 without providing any services or comfort. The complainant also alleged that the complainant paid billed amount to opposite party No.1 by hard cash and no debit or credit card transaction effected, but opposite party No. 1 illegally imposed surcharge on the bill amount. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties with the malafied intention and for grabbing or earning the more profit by way of mala fide trade practice and with the connivance of each other charged extra amount from the complainant by way of imposing illegal charges or taxes in the billed amount, details of which is as under :- Illegal Charges Charged details: 1) Kingfisheer Lager Beer Charges:Rate. 398-150 (Rs.75 (MRP) x2)= Rs.248/- 2) Tuborg Strong Beer Charges: 349-145 (Rs.145 (MRP) x1) = Rs.204/- 3) Afgani Paneer = 349/- 4) Service Charges 5% = 56.30/- 5) SGST 2.5% ON 379 = 9.48 6) CGST 2.5% ON 379 = 9.48 7) OUTPUT VAT@20% ON 747 =149.40 8) Surcharge 20% = 29.88 9) Round off = 0.46 TOTAL Amount: 1086/- |
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1086/- with interest, as detailed above, in addition to compenstion and costs. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite party No. 1, but none appeared on its behalf, as such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 1. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 were deleted from the array of the opposite parties vide order dated 8-6-2022. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 2.6.2022 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8). Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 28-4-2022, complainant had seen various advertisements on the hoardings and brouchers which were circulated through out various places of City Jaipur and in this way, opposite parties offered various services by alluring the visitors at their Sky Bar with the intention to earn more money by way of imposing tax on the bills. It is further argued that complainant visited the premises of opposite party No. 1 and ordered chilled beer and non-veg food but since there was no electricity supply, as such, beer supplied to the complainant was not chilled and the complainant was supplied unhygenic veg food. It is further argued that opposite party No. 1 charged amount illegally and unlawfully from the complainant. The price of Kingfisher Premium Large Beer was having MRP of Rs. 75/- and accordingly for 2 bottles, the opposite party No. 1 charged Rs. 248/- in excess. Similarly, for 1 bottle of Tuborg Strong Beer, the opposite party No. 1Charged Rs. 349/- inspite of MRP of Rs. 145/- and in this way, charged Rs. 204/- in excess. It is further argued that on the above referred amounts, the opposite party also charged Rs. 149.40 in the shape of VAT as well as Service Tax i.e. Rs. 56.30 and Surcharge of Rs. 29.88 inspite of the fact that taxes and service tax were already included in the MRP. In this way, the opposite party charged Rs. 687.58 in exces from the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 was not authorised to reover service charges as beer supplied to the complainant was not chilled and was not supplied in glasses or beer mugs. Accordingly, act on the part of the opposite party No. 1 having charged excess amount, amounts to deficiency in service and business mal-practice. The learned counsel for the complainant has also placed on record bill Ex. C-2 wherein the said amounts have been shown under different heads. He also relied upon judgement/decision of Hon'ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 210 of 2015, decided on 1-9-2015 in case Shopper Stop and Others Vs. Jashan Preet Singh Gill and others wherein it has been held that no one can charge more than the MRP and MRP includes all taxes including VAT/other taxes. When MRP is inclusive of all taxes, then VAT/other taxes cannot be charged seprately. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant visited the Bar of opposite party No. 1 and purchased bottles of Beer and availed services of the opposite party No. 1. It is also admitted fact that opposite party No. 1 charged net amount of Rs. 1381/- from the complainant vide Ex. C-2 and charged excess amount of Rs. 687.58 from the complainant i.e. by way of excess amount of the bottles of beer than receivable amount on account of surcharge, VAT and other head. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon document Ex. C-4 as per which restaurant can add tax in the bills when receiving payments by cheque, credit, charge or debit card. By relying upon the unrebutted evidence, above mentioned judgement and details Ex. C-4 as per which tax can be charged by restaurant on some specific conditions, this Commission is of the view that opposite party No. 1 has charged Rs. 687.58 in excess from the complainant. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 687.58 to the complainant and pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 18-05-2023 ( Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
