D.O.F:01/09/2022
D.O.O:15/02/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.208/2022
Dated this, the 15th day of February 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Sharath Kumar. K Aged 41 years,
Thekkumbadan Veedu,
Thottichal, Karivellur P.O : Complainant
Kannur District. 670521.
And
Pizza Hut,
Near Grand Hyper Market,
Magnum Mall Payyannur,
Kannur District. 670307 : Opposite Party
(Adv: N. Sudheer & Sreekala Krishna)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complainant is alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, “Pizza Hut” in connection with charging excess price for lime water from the complainant and not exhibiting price list of the products in front of the shop for the general awareness of the customers.
The brief facts of the case is that, on 31/08/2022, the complainant and his wife visited Pizza Hut at Payyannur at about 1 PM. The complainant placed order for Pizza and after having the same, placed order for lime water. The usual practice of that shop is that the consumer has to pay the bill first. So the complainant after having Pizza went to the counter for paying the price of lime water. Then the lady cashier told him that he can pay after having lime water. Even though the shop was air conditioned, no cooling was feeling inside the restaurant. The lime water supplied by op was ordinary, but opposite party charged Rs. 99/- per glass for the same, which is very excessive comparing to other shops. The complainant could see from their seat itself that after preparing 4 glass lime water, the balance in the jug was drank by the staff directly from jug. By seeing this, he felt that the opposite party shop was not giving much priority to hygiene comparing to other restaurants. The complainant had undergone loss of money and mental agony due to the charging of excessive price for lime water by Opposite Party and not exhibiting the pricelist. Hence he filed this complaint for necessary redressal. The prayer of the complainant is to return the balance amount after charging reasonable price for lime water with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for unfair trade practice.
The opposite party filed version stating that the complaint will not lie as there is no party in the complaint. The opposite party mentioned is Pizza Hut, which is only the brand name of SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED. No case can lie against the brand name. The name of the company, or name of the owner of Pizza Hut is not made a party and hence this complaint is to be dismissed on the sole ground itself. The cause of action has arose in Pizza Hut Restaurant and this court is not having the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. “The complainant is running the Pizza Hut Restaurant all across the country” and the price is also common for all their products excepts when there is offers in different shops and areas. The opposite party further submitted that the price list of each product is published in the restaurant for the awareness of the customers and it is as per laws governed for them. The complainant had visited the Pizza Hut, Payyannur and had drunk two lime juice water from the shop owned by SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED. It is true that the price for the lime juice is Rs. 99/- and the same was also published in the price list inside the shop as well as in the menu card. Every customer has to make the payment up front and a table number is allocated to the customer. The item ordered will be delivered to the table thereafter. Hence the averment in the complaint that the cost was known only at the time of giving of the bill is not true. Any person who orders the item is bound to verify the cost of the same before purchasing the same. Having read the price list and after consuming the same and having agreed on the price, the consumer cannot claim the same is over-priced. It is not the cost of the lime and water involved alone adds to the cost of the lime water, but also the service rendered by the restaurant, AC enjoyed by the customer, the service given by the staff of the restaurant, all adds up to the price of the restaurant and that is the reason why the cost of the product varies from the small shops and the branded Pizza Hut Restaurants. No cause of action has arisen for the complainants to file this complaint. There is no inconvenience, damages or any other caused attracting the compensation as claimed in the complaint. There is no unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of the opposite party. There is no rationale in making such an illegal, arbitrary, imaginary amount as compensation. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with heavy cost in the interest of this.
On 12/10/2022, the notice of opposite party served, but they remained absent. Name called absent, set exparte. On 30/11/2022, the opposite party advanced the case and filed the IA 371/2022, to set aside the exparte order passed against them and IA 372/2022 to enlarge the time to file version. Both IA’s heard and allowed, on condition to pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The opposite party also filed IA 127/2023 raising the issue of maintainability. Both sides heard and it is decided by the Commission that the IA 127/2022 will be considered along with main complaint. The complainant was cross examined as PW1 and his wife is examined as Pw2. Ext. A1 to A3 marked. The Opposite party submitted that they have no evidence. Hence both sides heard and documents perused.
The main issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether this commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
- Whether the complaint is non jointer of necessary party?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in charging excessive price for lime water from the complainant?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
All points can be discussed together.
- As per Sec 34 of the consumer protection act 2019 a consumer can register their complaints at a place were
- all or any of the opposite party’s resides or carries on business or
- the place of cause of action
- or where the complainant is residing or work for gain.
In this case As per Ext A3 document issued by JRTO Kasaragod the complainant was working as a system operator in C-Dit Kasaragod from 2019 to 6th January 2023. This complaint is filed on 01/09/2022 when the complainant is working at the office of JRTO Kasaragod which is within the jurisdiction of this commission Hence this commission has amble powers to entertain the above case. The opposite party has not produced any material evidence to contradict Ext A3 .
2. The other contention raised by opposite party is that name shown as opposite party in the complaint is only a brand name and there is no such opposite party company by name Pizza Hut. A complaint against the brand name will not be entertained.
The opposite party submitted before this commission that they are conducting restaurant business all over the country in the name and style “Pizza Hut”. According to the common consumer they will consider what is exhibited in the name board of the restaurant as its name. They are unaware of the company name which lies only on papers. The opposite party are bound to exhibit the name of the company in their board as SAPPHIRE FOODS INDIA LIMITED, then only non -joinder can be pleaded.
3. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had charged Rs. 99/- for one glass lime water. In all over Kerala the price of lime juice is Rs. 10/- per glass. Every common man have direct knowledge about the price of lime juice and this commission also have the same. Charging Rs. 99/- for one glass lime water is excessive and is against the consumer rights, it is an exploitation to consumers. Another contention raised by opposite party is that there is no cause of action for this complaint. The cause of action arose on 31/08/2022 at about 1 pm when the complainant with his wife visited the opposite party’s restaurant Pizza hut at Payyannur branch and ordered for two glass of lime juice, and at the time of paying the bill when opposite party charged Rs. 99/- at Kannur District. The excessive price charged by the Opposite party caused severe mental agony loss and inconvenience to him.
4. As it is very clear from Ext A2 that opposite party has charged Rs. 99/- for one glass fresh lime water. The complainant deposed before the commission that, “R§Ä BZyw-I-gn-¨Xv ]nÊ-bm-Wv. ]cm-Xn-bn ta¡m-cyw-kq-Nn-¸n-¡m-¯Xns\¸än H¶pw ]d-bm-\n-Ã. ]nÊ Ign-¡p-¶-Xn\p ap¼v _n B¡n AhnsS BZyw _n B¡nb tijw am{Xta `£Ww In«p-I-bp-Åq. Cu Øm]-\-¯nsâ ]¿-¶qÀ imJ-bn AÃmsX asäm-cn-S-¯pw-\n¶pw `£Ww Ign-¨n-«n-Ã. _n  Iw¼-\n-bpsS t]cv tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bXv {i²n-¨n-Ã. ‘]nÊ-l«v’ F¶Xv Hcp {_mâv s\bnw am{X-amWv F¶p ]d-ªm Øm]-\-¯nsâ t_mÀUn AXp ImWn-Ã. Fsâ IqsS `mcybpw Dm-bn-cp¶p F¶ Imcyw ]cm-Xn-bn ]d-ªn-cp-¶p. AXv FbÀI-o-j³ BWv. B sdtÌm-dân B ka-b¯v F.kn hÀ¡v sNbvXn-cp-¶n-Ãm-sb¶v Iw¹-bvân ]d-ªn-«nà F¶p ]T-ªm BZyw sImSp¯ ]cm-Xn-bn In-Ã. Rm³ kn. Unäv  hÀ¡v sN¿p-I-bm-bn-cp-¶p. B ka-b¯v ImkÀtKmUv hÀ¡v sN¿p-I-bm-bn-cp-¶p. Cu Imcy-§Ä ImWp-¶nà F¶p ]d-ªm AXv DÄs¸-Sp-¯-W-sa¶v AdnbnÃmbncp-¶p. kw`-h-Im-e¯v kn.-Unäv  hÀ¡v sNbvXn-cp¶p F¶p ImWn-¡m³ tcJ lmP-cm-¡n-bnà F¶p ]d-ªm icn-b-Ã. km£y-]{Xw X¶-bmsf hnkvX-cn-¡p-¶nÃ. ImkÀtKmUv PnÃ-bn ‘]nÊ l«v’ DÅ-Xmbn F\n-¡-dn-bn-Ã. The complainant disposed before the Commission that menu card was not exhibited there. The opposite party in their version stated that it is not the cost of the lime and water involved alone adds to the cost of the lime water. But also the service rendered by the restaurant, A/C enjoyed by the customer, the service given by the staff of the restaurant, all adds up to the price of the restaurant and that is the reason why the cost of the product varies from the small shop and the branded Pizza Hut restaurants. Considering the deposition of the complainant it is clear that A/C was not functioning there at that time. Moreover menu board also not exhibited in the counter or if there is any change in rate of the foods from other shops. All these points amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party’s. Due to the unfair trade practice and the deficiency of the service on the part of opposite party’s the complainant had undergone severe mental agony and loss.
This commission has gone through the order of the Supreme Court of India in “ Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India” v/s Union of India (U01) & ors
The subject matter involved in that case is entirely different from present case. Charging of prices for mineral water in excess of MRP printed on packaging is entirely different from charging excess price for lime water. Lime water is not a packed food with proper indication on the package of net quality by weight etc. Hence the ruling submitted by Opposite Party’s counsel is not applicable in this case.
In the 3rd para of the version filed by Opposite Party it is stated that complaint is running the ‘Pizza Hut’ all across the country is sufficient to allow the complaint.
We carefully perused the material evidences brought before the commission and we holds that the complainant is entitled for relief .
The complainant is seeking refund of the excess amount charged from him along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-, even though the complainant is entitled for refund, this commission allows compensation and cost only to the complainant in this case in interest of justice. The complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 5000/- along with 3000/- as cost of this litigation.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Bill
A2- Tax invoice
A3- Certificate issued by RTO
Witness Examined
Pw1- Sharath Kumar.K
Pw2-Krishna Kripa. C. H
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
