The instant appeal relates to the final order delivered on 01/06/2018 in CC No. 15/01/2017 by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Darjeeling. The appellant in this case Kurseong Tourist Lodge represented by its manager and the respondent of this case is Mr. Rahul Kedia who being a bona fide consumer visited along with his friends to the Kurseong Tourist Lodge on 05/11/2017 for having a light meal. He placed order for some food items and a bottle of packaged mineral water. They also placed order for another bottle of mineral water. The tourist lodge charges at the rate of 5 per cent over the bill amount of food items and GST charge at the rate of 18 per cent on both the packaged mineral waters and payable amount of bill confined to Rs. 332 which was challenged by the consumer complainant and his friends for over charging of service charge and GST charge. The complainant and his friends raised protest such unfair trade practice for unlawfully and illegally charging for excess payment but their protest was totally ignored. So, he came before the Ld. Forum for redressal of his grievances with claims for compensation and return of all excess payment as well as litigation cost etc. The appellant Kurseong Tourist Lodge had denied the consumer case by submitting the written version contended that the said bill was prepared by billing machines which are automatic one by installing a software where the system of VAT and system of GST was imposed by the Government for the whole of India. And in this regard, the appellant organization had no fault at their own and they were duty bound as per procedure of VAT and GST to realize the charges from the customers as per Government norms and there was no deficiency of service on their part. The Ld. Forum after hearing both sides delivered the impugned judgement accepting the contention of the consumer complainant and came to a conclusion that there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/OP and for that reason the appellant/OP was directed to make payment of Rs. 20.70 for excess amount and Rs. 15,000 for compensation, Rs. 10,000 for transport cost and Rs. 15,000 for litigation cost and the OP/appellant was further directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 in the consumer legal aid fund.
Being aggrieved with the said judgement and order, this appeal follows on the ground that the impugned order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F based on errors and mis conception of law and the order is liable to be set aside. The further case of the appellant is that the respondent/complainant with ulterior motive has lodged the consumer complaint for illegal gain and for that reason the appeal should be allowed and impugned order should be set aside. The appeal was admitted on merit and the respondent was asked to appear before the commission after receiving the notice. The respondent recorded his appearance by appointing Ld. Advocate as legal representative and contested the appeal by submitting written note of argument. The appellant side also furnished the written note of argument along with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court civil appeal no. 21790 of 2017 with 21791 of 2017. The respondent side along with his written argument furnished the guidelines of the Govt. of India. Ministry of Consumer Affairs notification no. J-24/9/2014-CPU (Pt.)
D I C I S I O N S W I T H R E A S O N S
Ld. D.C.D.R.F at the time of adjudication of this case of the consumer complaint has settled two points for determination.
- Was there any negligence and deficiency on the part of OP?
- Whether the complainant was entitled to releives as claimed for?
Ld. D.C.D.R.F has answered both the points in favour of the respondent/complainant. The appeal was heard in presence of the Ld. Advocate of both sides by furnishing the written note of argument. The Ld. Advocate of the appellant submits that Kurseong Tourist Lodge is an under taking of Govt. West Bengal and has goodwill in the business. He further mentions that the respondent and his friends visited the self-service section of the tourist lodge and called the steward and placed an order of servicing five plates of veg. momos and one bottle of package water and thereafter another mineral water of one litre was ordered for supply. As per system when the steward was called for delivery of food items, payment of service charge was mandatory. He further submits that MRP. Printed in both the mineral waters mention the price Rs. 20 each. But after the system of GST enforced by the Government of India through out the country the realization of GST amount from each item was mandatory on the part of the hoteliers and the hoteliers can demand the GST charges beyond the printed price and it has been duly endorsed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in civil appeal no. 21790 of 2017 and 21791 of 2017. He further submits that appellant/OP in their written version categorically mentioned that the complainant/respondent adopted a wait and watch policy that is if the respondent succeeds, in the instant case, the other friends of the respondent/complainant follow suit on the same ground. It is just a technique to squeeze money but the Ld. Forum has totally ignored the averment of the appellant at the time of hearing the consumer complaint. Ld. Advocate of the respondent/complainant in addition to his written note of argument mentioned that regarding service charge, they have nothing to say but the GST charge beyond printed price of mineral waters is totally illegal and violation to the guidelines on fair trade practice of Ministry of Consumer Affairs, food and public distribution of Govt. of India.
After hearing both sides, we find the disputes here, confines only to the GST charges levied by the appellant organization which was beyond the MRP prices printed in the mineral bottles whether such demand of excess money in the name of GST comes with in the purview of unfair trade practice or not. But notification of guidelines of CAD, Govt. of India dated 21/04/2017 based on the new regulations of GST already lodged through out our country at the instant of Government and all the State Governments.
We know very well that the general customers at the time of purchase the mineral waters, they make payment the printed price of the mineral water and in that position the sellers of the mineral water are not allowed to realize money beyond the MRP levelled in the bottle from the customers in the name of GST. Generally, the GST price are included in the MRP. And extra charges in the name of GST is not at all permissible. The ruling cited by the appellant by the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned above has got no resemblance with the dispute related to this case. Where the Hon’ble supreme Court in that civil appeal mentioned that the provision of standard of weights and measures Act, 1976 and the related rules are not applicable to services rendered in the premises of hotels and restaurants. And for that reason, the hotels or restaurants can realize extra charges in excess of MRP. printed on the package by the hotels and restaurants as the hotels are institutional consumers who buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturer for use by that institution. Here, in this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the hoteliers to realize the extra charges from the customers beyond the MRP. Such charges should not be the GST because GST charges always included in the MRP. If the appellant hotelier demanded the service charge for supplying the mineral water to the customer at the rate of 5 per cent within the contention would by otherwise. Here in this case, appellant hotelier puts charges for servicing the order placed by the respondents for serving 5 plates of momos and mineral waters and service charge in this score has raised in the bill. Thereafter the appellant hotelier charged GST over the MRP of the mineral water bottle which appears to be illegal and against the mandate of the Govt. for realization of GST beyond the MRP. Prices levelled in the bottle.
On the other hand, the amount of compensation along with transportation cost and litigation cost imposed by the Ld. Forum appears to be exorbitant and nothing to the proportion of the wrongs done by the appellant hotelier and the further direction of the Ld. Forum for depositing Rs 10,000 to the consumer legal aid furnd also appears to be excessive one. The actual extra payment was made Rs. 3.60 paisa per bottle in the name of GST that is Rs. 7.20 paisa of two bottles should be refunded to the appellant instead Rs. 20.70 paisa as imposed by Ld. Forum. So, this order regarding the amount of awarded money should be decreased for the interest of fair justice and should be modified
Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed in part, in respect of the ordering portion of the final order of the Ld. Forum and it should be partially modified.
Hence it is ordered: -
That the CC case no. 15/D/2017 be and the same is hereby partly allowed on contest without imposing any cost. Regarding the excess amount to be paid by the appellant to be confined to Rs. 7.20 paisa instead of 20.70 paisa. The amount of compensation awarded by the Ld. Forum to be settled at Rs. 5,000 instead of Rs. 15,000. Transportation cost to be confined to Rs. 2,000 instead of Rs. 10,000 and litigation cost to be imposed Rs. 5,000 instead of Rs. 15,000. The order for depositing Rs. 10,000 to the Legal Aid Fund to be reduced to Rs. 5,000. The remaining portion of the order of the Ld. D.C.D.R.F remains to be intact.
Let the copy of this final order of appeal be supplied to the parties to this appeal free of cost and the copy of final order to be communicated to the Ld. Forum through e-mail.
