DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.1046 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  11.12.2017                                             Date of decision   :  01.08.2018

Hakam Singh son of Shri Harpal Singh, resident of # 353, Sector 71, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Vs

Pizza Hut, Devyani International Ltd., SCO 10, Phase-5, Mohali through its Incharge/MD/Manager.

                                                            ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                OP Ex-parte.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant alongwith his friend after visiting premises of OP at Mohali, purchased one Pepsi PET bottle alongwith one Tandoori Paneer Pan-MED Pizza, on which bill of Rs.331/- was raised by OP. Through that bill, amount of Rs.60/- charged on the Pepsi bottle. However, on insistence of officials of OP, complainant had to pay Rs.60/- as price of that bottle on 01.11.2017. Act of charging excess price than MRP of Rs.35/- is unfair trade practice and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of Rs.25/- extra charged amount alongwith compensation for unfair trade practice of Rs.70,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.             OP is ex-parte in this case.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Perusal of contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith that of the Pepsi bottle label Ex.C-1 and invoice Ex.C-2 establishes that complainant had to pay Rs.60/- as price of Pepsi soft drink bottle because MRP of Rs.60/- is printed on that bottle. However, same bottle available in the market with MRP of Rs.35/- is a fact borne from the bottle label snap shot Ex.C-3 and invoice Ex.C-4. So it is obvious that the evidence produced by complainant establishes as if Rs.25/- charged in excess than that of MRP printed on the bottle, when such bottle purchased from open market.

6.             As per law laid down in case of Big Cinemas & Anr. Reliance Media –Works Limited Vs. Manoj Kumar, 2016 LawSuit (CO) 191 (NC) if a water bottle with MRP of Rs.16/- is available in open market, but the big cinemas sells the same at Rs.30/- by mentioning MRP as Rs.26.09 N.P. alongwith tax of Rs.3.91 N.P., then practice of charging extra amount is unfair trade practice. It is so because there cannot be two MRPs except in accordance with law. Ratio of that case fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such it is obvious that OP adopted unfair trade practice by charging Rs.25/- in excess of MRP of the same bottle available from open market. One manufacturer cannot mention two MRPs of the same product through open outlets, is virtually the crux of the above cited case. Manufacturer of Pepsi bottles in question is one and the same. So mentioning of two different MRPs of
Rs.35/- and Rs.60/- is unfair trade practice. There is nothing on the record to suggest that OP provided any ambiance or extra facilities like that of three star and 5 star hotels for sale of the product in question at its premises. So in view of adoption of unfair trade practice by OP in charging Rs.25/- as extra amount than that of MRP, complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and as such he is entitled for compensation under that head alongwith litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount, by keeping in view the fact that OP has not contested this complaint.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed ex-parte with direction to OP to refund excess received amount of Rs.25/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 01.11.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OP.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

August 01, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                       (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member