DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.811 of 2017
Date of institution: 26.09.2017 Date of decision : 07.03.2018
Vishwadeep Nirman daughter of Narinder Singh, resident of House No.2489, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala.
…….Complainant
Vs
Pizza Hut Devyani International Ltd. (PH) The North Country Mall, SAS Nagar, NH 21, Mohali Kharar Road, SAS Nagar, through its Managing Director.
……..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 Amandeep Singh, counsel for complainant.
Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari, Deputy Manager Finance for the OP.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant visited OP in North Country Mall, SAS Nagar (Mohali) on 25.10.2016 and purchased one Pizza, one Garlic Bread and Two Pepsi against invoice/bill of amount of Rs.778/-. Rs.57.36 N.P. was charged as service charges through bill, despite the fact that same are not claimable. Though complainant raised objection regarding these service charges of amount of Rs.57.36 N.P. being levied, but her request was not paid heed. So by pleading deficiency in service on part of OP, prayer made to refund the received over charged amount of Rs.57.36 N.P. on account of service charges. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.20,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.
2. OP is exparte in this case. During course of arguments Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari, Deputy Manager Finance in the office of the OP appeared and sought adjournment. That request for adjournment was turned down and after closure of evidence of complainant on tender of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and document Ex.C-1, arguments of counsel for complainant as well as of Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari heard.
3. Perusal of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith invoice Ex.C-1 establishes that service charges of amount of Rs.57.36 N.P. @ 10% claimed from complainant by OP in addition to price of the product and VAT as well as service tax amounts. Grievance of the complainant is regarding charging of Rs.57.36 N.P. as service charges only. Service charges can be claimed only as per guidelines issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) contained in circular dated 21.04.2017, copy of which is produced by counsel for complainant.
4. After going through these instructions issued by Govt. of India through circular dated 21.04.2017, it is made out that on placing of order by customer, he is liable to pay the price displayed in the menu card alongwith applicable taxes only. In case anything in excess of price amount and the applicable taxes is charged, then the same is unfair trade practice as per instruction No.2 of these guidelines issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs of Govt. of India. Further as per Clause-5 of these instructions, the bill presented to the customer should clearly display that service charge is voluntarily payable. The service charges column of the bill has to be left blank for filling up by the customer before making payment. However, perusal of invoice/order memo Ex.C-1 reveals that no service charges column left blank for filling up of the same by customer making payment. So the guidelines issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs of Govt. of India not followed in respect of issue of invoice Ex.C-1. These guidelines specifically provide that service charge is payable voluntarily by customer, but here complainant has been forced to pay the service charges amount of Rs.57.36 N.P. because due option of filling up the blank column was not given to complainant. So certainly OP adopted unfair trade practice on account of forcible charging of service charges amount of Rs.57.36 N.P. through invoice Ex.C-1. Submission of Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari has no force that in view of extra facilities provided by Pizza Hut outlet, service charges are claimable as per traditions and practice of the market. It is not a tradition and practice of business concern that is to prevail, rather guidelines issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India to prevail and as such charging of service charges amount of Rs.57.36 N.P. through invoice Ex.C-1 amounts to unfair trade practice. So complainant entitled for refund of this amount with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of purchase namely 25.10.2016 till payment. As OP remained ex-parte throughout until hearing of arguments, and as such reasonable amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses alone needs be allowed.
5. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed with direction to OP to refund the service charges of Rs.57.36 N.P. with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 25.10.2016 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 these amounts of compensation and litigation cost be made within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of order.
Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it will be the responsibility of the learned counsel or representative for the parties or representative to inform them accordingly. This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
March 07, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
