By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The case of complainant is that on 11/10/08 the complainant purchased from the respondent a bottle of Honey Bee Brandy, Half Bottle of Mcdowel Celebration Rum, Six bottles of Zingaro Strong Beer. The respondent had charged Rs.1040/- and issued a bill vide No.9850. Subsequently when the complainant noted the price printed on stickers, it was seen that the respondent had taken excess amount than MRP printed on the bottles. When it was enquired with the worker of respondent it was told that this is the rate prevailing here. The respondent has no authority to charge excess amount than the MRP. This act of the respondent is unfair trade practice. The respondent is liable to return Rs.310/-, the excess amount received and also compensation. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter is to the effect that the complaint is baseless and is liable to be dismissed. It is unbelievable that the complainant himself purchased such a quantity of liquor. The complainant is not a consumer. There is no excess amount received from complainant. There is no loss occurred to complainant. There was no unfair trade practice committed by respondent. The respondent’s hotel is functioning as per the licence issued from the authorities. The liquor to the respondent’s hotel is provided by Kerala Government and the respondent has authority to sell the liquor along with the service charges in addition to the actual price. There are amenities to consume liquor by sitting in the hotel and there are amenities of water, light, fan, toilet, ice etc. The service of suppliers also available. So the charges for these services are to be imposed. The complainant along with his friends visited the respondent hotel and enjoyed all the amenities provided. The respondent is imposing 1/3rd of the rate which was prevailing in the hotels at Thrissur and Ernakulam. There is no justice in saying that more charges were taken after enjoying the amenities available in the hotel. The MRP rate is imposing only for the liquors selling through Beverage Corporation. There is sanction from the Excise Department to sell liquor along with service charges in Star bar. There is no bonafide in the complaint. The complaint is experimental. Hence dismiss. 3. Points for consideration are: 1) Is there any unfair trade practice committed by the respondent? 2) If so reliefs and costs? 4. The evidence consists of Exhibit P1 only. No oral evidence adduced by the petitioner and no evidence adduced by respondent. 5. The case of complainant is that he had purchased one bottle of Honey Bee Brandy, Half Bottle of Mcdowel Celebration Rum, Six bottles of Zingaro Strong Beer from the respondent on 11/10/08. The respondent totally imposed Rs.1040/- and it is evidenced by Exhibit P1. According to the complainant these things cost Rs.730/- only and the respondent taken Rs.310/- in excess. It is the case of complainant that the respondent had taken excess than the MRP provided on the bottles. So this case filed to get back the excess amount along with compensation. 6. Respondent filed counter by totally denying the version of complainant and stated that they have right to impose excess amount as service charges. According to them it is the duty and liability of Beverages Corporation to sell liquor only for MRP. They can take service charges in addition to the actual cost of the liquor. According to them in their hotel there are amenities of consuming liquor by sitting in the hotel and also amenities of water, ice, snacks, light, fan, toilet etc. There will also the service of suppliers. According to the respondent the complainant along with his friends visited respondent hotel and spent hours in the hotel by enjoying the amenities. They imposed only the service charges in addition to the MRP. 7. It is the definite case of respondent that they have every right to impose excess amount than MRP because they are providing other amenities also to the customers. It is the definite case of respondent that the complainant along with his friends come to the bar hotel and consumed liquor and also enjoyed facilities available there. So they have imposed service charges in addition to the cost of liquor. It is true that they can impose charges for the amenities provided by them. It is not a retail outlet and it is very well aware to the complainant also. The complainant has no case that he did not enjoy the amenities and simply purchased the liquor and go away. It is the duty of complainant to disprove the version taken by respondent. He failed to prove his case miserably. He did not adduce oral evidence to disprove the contentions of respondent that he along with his friends visited the bar and consumed liquor by enjoying facilities available in the bar. Since it is not a retail outlet and as stated by respondent there are the facilities stated by respondent the presumption is that complainant would have enjoyed it. There is no denial with regard to the facilities on the part of complainant. The respondent has every right to take service charges and according to them they have taken only charges which are permissible by the law. 8. The complainant only produced Exhibit P1 to prove his case. He has not produced any evidence to show the actual price of liquor. He also failed to show that he did not consume the liquor by enjoying facilities. 9. In the result the complaint is dismissed. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of February 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
