Date of Filing:26-10-2017
Date of Order:07 -8-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 7th day of August, 2019
C.C.No.460 /2017
Between
Sri P.Laxmi Kanth Reddy,
S/o.Sri P.Narayana Reddy,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.Flat No.403, Fourth floor,
Sai Sundar Towers, LIC Colony,
West Marredpally, Secunderabad ……Complainant
And
The Manager,
ROYALASEEMA RUCHULU RESTAURANT,
At Lak-di-kapool,
Besides Saifabad Police Station,
Hyderabad – 500004 ….Opposite Party
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.Jaya Associates
Counsel for the opposite Party : M/s. Hyderabad Law Associates
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that charging a sum of Rs.44 for one (1) litre water bottle instead of MRP rate of Rs.20/- amounts to unfair trade practice hence to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and further sum of Rs.30,000/- towards professional fee paid by him for filing of this complaint.
- Complainant’s case in brief is that on 12-7-2017 he and his friend visited the opposite party restaurant at 4.20P.M and ordered for two plates of Sambar rice and for a water bottle. Later he was shocked to see the bill issued by management charging of Rs.44/- for one litre of water bottle whose actual cost is Rs.20/- as MRP printed on it. The opposite party restaurant is selling the product over and above the MRP rate and when the same was pointed out by the complainant there was no satisfactory reply and the person concerned started picking up arguments and confirmed that it is their practice.
Opposite party restaurant also collected 23% as service Tax which is also in excessive. Hence the complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite party restaurant on 13-09-2017 and having received it the opposite party neither gave reply nor complied the demand made in the notice. Hence the present complaint.
- Opposite party filed a written version admitting the complainant’s visit to the restaurant and issuance of a final bill but denied the allegation of unfair trade practice and entitlement of the complainant’s claim for compensation. The defense set out in the written version is that the present complaint has been filed against the Manager, Rayala Seema Ruchulu as opposite party but there is no legal entity by the name Rayala Seema Ruchulu . It is a partnership firm under the name and style “Apeksha Enterprises” operating restaurant business in the name and style of Rayala Seema Ruchulu at the location indicated in the complaint, as such the present complaint against the non legal entity is not maintainable.
The restaurant is not selling the products over and above MRP rates. The allegation in the complaint is restricted to a bottle of water ordered by the complainant. Opposite party is not a retail out let which sells water bottles. Restaurant charges not only for the water bottle but also service given to the complainant at the restaurant and for providing amenities and facilities to the customers right from the time the customers enters into the restaurant. The Management of the restaurant employed licensed and trained drivers to provide Valet service to the customers coming in the cars to park at parking slot provided in the building of restaurant. A trained door man receives the customers and opens the door of the restaurant for entry. It also employed for regular cleaning wash rooms specialized lightings throughout the restaurant, cutlery and crockery with specialized ambience. The customers on visit to the restaurant enjoys these facilities right from the time of enter in the restaurant and consumes food and drinks till leaving of the restaurant.
The complainant ordered two plates of Sambar rice and water bottle and same was served to him and to his companion who consumed the same in the restaurant. At the same time the complainant and companion enjoyed the facilities amenities service as provided in the restaurant. Hence the restaurant is justified in charging the complainant not only for water bottle but also for the above mentioned facilities, amenities and services provided in the restaurant.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Association of India Vs.Union of India and also Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in R.Pasupathy and others vs. the Inspector, Legal Metrology and another to upheld the practice of collecting the charges over and above the MRP for the service rendered in the restaurant. The allegation of the complainant that the people at restaurant started arguing and informed that it is their practice to collect the charges over and above the MRP rate is false. In fact the staff informed the customer that the bill includes the cost of the food, drinks for the customers and air- conditioned facilities.
The manager receives the customer at the door and seats them at a comfortable table. The trained bearers provide menus and assist the customers in placing their orders which will be communicated to the kitchen through smart phones or tablets with specialized software. Highly specialized chefs cooks the dishes so ordered in a modern kitchen. The customer uses the cutlery, crockery and glasses provided in the restaurant for consuming the food and drinks. After consuming the food and taking drinks the customers are provided with finger bowls filled with warm water and slices of lime to wash their hands. The paper napkins are provided at the table for the convenience of the customers. Another person employed by the restaurant furnishes the bill to the customer and collect the money and makes the payment at the cash counter on behalf of the customer. The customer is also provided mouth fresheners after the meal. While the customer is leaving the restaurant the door man once again opened the door for the customers. If the customer has come by car the driver employed by restaurant brings the car to the place where the customer is standing. After the finishing the food and drinks the dishes, cutlery , crockery used by the customer are taken away by the staff of the restaurant and are cleaned in a washing area. Apart from the above the customer also benefits from various amenities, facilities which includes man power, CCTV camera and servers and Air conditioners.
The restaurant is not a retail out let which sells water bottle. The allegation of collecting 23% tax is false and misconceived. The restaurant is statutory bound to collect CGST and SGST amounting to at 9% each and same is reflected in the bill. The complainant was clearly explained by the staff that 5% reflecting in the bill as SC is not service tax but also charge or a tip for the waiters and the customer has option not to pay the same. Satisfied with this explanation complainant paid the full bill amount and went away.
The opposite party thought that the matter was settled at the restaurant itself on the same day but was surprised to see notice dated 14-09-17 from the complainant. Soon after receiving of the notice a representative of the opposite party called the complainant on his mobile No.9246371455 and explained him the facts but the complainant made a demand for payment of Rs.50,000/- in cash for settling the issue and threatened to drag the opposite party into the Court and defame it if the amount is not paid. Opposite party refused to pay the same then the complainant has come up with present false complaint.
In the enquiry the complainant got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating material facts of the complaint and to support the same got exhibited Xerox copies of bill, photographs of water bill, copy of legal notice and postal receipt thereof as A1 to A5. Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of Sri B.V.Uttam Reddy stated to be managing partner of Apeksha Enterprises is got filed and substance of the same is in line with the written version filed for it. No document is exhibited for the opposite party.
On a consideration of material available on record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the opposite party is indulging in unfair trade practice by collecting the charges over and above the printed MRP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The opposite party has not denied the visit of the complainant and his friend on 12-7-2017 and placing of order for two plates of Sambar rice and for a water bottle. It also not denied issuance of bill ExA1 original. As could be seen from Ex.A1 bill opposite party restaurant charged Rs.378/- for two plates of Sambar rice and Rs.44/- for packaged drinking water. In addition to its Rs.39.88 are shown towards State G.S.T and 39.88 Central G.S.T and Rs.21 towards SCC which is claiming to be a service charge thus a net amount claimed in the bill is Rs.525/-.
The learned counsel of the opposite party in support of defense taken that the opposite party is entitled to collect over and above MRP rates placed reliance in the case of Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Association of India Vs.Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 SC73. A reading of the above judgement shows a Civil suit was filed before the Trial court which held that charging price for Mineral water bottle in excess of MRP printed on packaging,, during service of customers in hotels and restaurants do not violate any of provisions of Act as it will not constitute sale or transfer of these commodities by hotelier or Restaurateur to its customers- Against the said findings an appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Apex Court for seeking declaration that provisions of different Acts are not applicable to services rendered in the premises of hotels/restaurants.
Controller of weights and measures were seeking to proceed against the hotels and restaurants for charging price higher than the printed maximum retail price for supply of packaged water bottles during services provided to their customers in the hotels and restaurants.
The Trial Court held that charging prices for the Mineral water in excess of MRP printed on the packaging during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants did not violate any of the provisions of the SWM Act as this did not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hotel and restaurants to its customers. The customer did not enter hotel or a restaurant to make a simple purchase of these commodities. It may well be that a client would order nothing beyond a bottle of water or a beverage, but his direct purpose in doing so would clearly travel to enjoy the ambience available therein and incidentally to the ordering of any Article for consumption.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal holding that supply of services, and food and drinks would not come within the purview of enactment and that the object for enactments was something quite different the object being to standardize weights and measures for defined goods so that quantities that were supplied were thus mentioned on the package and that MRPs were mentioned so that there was one uniform price at which such goods were sold.
In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above in the instant case charging of price over and above MRP on the water bottle does not amount to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party restaurant. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.2: In view of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is not entitled for the amounts claimed.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 7th day of August , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- bill of water bottle No.8420 of Table No.30
Ex.A2- Photo of water bottle dt.12-07-2017
Ex.A3- notice dated 14-09-2017
Ex.A4 postal receipt
Ex.A5- merchant copy dated 12-7-2017
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
-Nil-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
