DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 569
Instituted on: 22.09.2016
Decided on: 24.01.2017
Rishav Goyal s/o Harminder Pal Goyal, resident of Sodhin Wala Mohala, Back side of Dr. Subash Jindal Clinic, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
Red Apple Hotel/Restaurant, Patiala Road, through its owner, Sangrur. Distt. Sangrur.
…Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.
For opposite party : Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Rishav Goyal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on 13.09.2016 the complainant along with his family members went to the restaurant of the OP and ordered for snacks and water bottle from the Op and paid the consideration. It is further averred that the complainant ordered for snacks and water from the OP, but the OP served the water bottle and after five minutes the staff person of the OP came and said that ordered snacks are not available, then the complainant and his family members decided to go to other restaurant for dinner and as such the OP issued bill number 1335 dated 13.09.2016 for Rs.37/- including all taxes, wherein the OP charged an amount of Rs.35/- per unit for water bottle against the maximum retail price of Rs.20/-, as printed on the bottle itself. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached the OP and requested for refund of the excess charges than the MRP, but the person at counter did not give any satisfactory reply rather misbehaved with the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Op, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay him a compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and further prayed to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In written reply filed by OP, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and that the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation. On merits, it has been admitted that the OP is running a big restaurant and hotel. But, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. It is stated further that the staff of the OP especially the serving staff knows well that which item is ready and which is not ready, so the question of telling the complainant after lapse of some time that the ordered snacks are not ready does not arise at all. It is stated further that the Op charged the amount of the product supplied to the customer including the service charges of the restaurant, as the price of the product does not include the service charges of the serving restaurant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of snap, Ex.C-4 empty bottle and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased a mineral water from the OP for Rs.37/-, as is evident from the bill dated 13.09.2016, Ex.C-2. Ex.C-3 is the copy of wrapper of water bottle showing that the printed price on the same was Rs.20/- only whereas the OP has charged Rs.37/- for the product including the govt. service tax of Rs.2/-, meaning thereby the OP charged Rs.15/- in excess being the price of the bottle from the complainant. In the present case, though the learned counsel for the OP has denied that no amount has been charged in excess, but it is proved from the copy of wrapper Ex.C-3 that the OP has charged Rs.15/- in excess than the printed price as is evident from the product i.e. water bottle Ex.C-4. Thus, it is beyond any doubt that the OP has charged Rs.15/- in excess from the complainant for the product as mentioned above. In the present case, the OP did not even opt to refund to the complainant, the excess amount of Rs.15/- to the complainant. Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Satyam Cinplexes versus Mark Paul 2006(3) CPJ 12, wherein the OP charged Rs.40/- for a bottle water against the printed price as Rs.12/- only, wherein it has been held by the Commission that hotel, restaurant or Cineplex cannot charge more than price and further it was held to be deficiency in service as OP adopted unfair trade practice and was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in common welfare fund and to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited Zaika Bazar versus Hemant Goel 2007(2) CPJ 96, wherein it was held that it is not open for the Op to charge higher price than MRP and punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- were imposed for depositing the same in favour of Consumer Welfare Fund. Further in another case namely, D.K.Chopra versus Snack Bar 2014(2) CPC 418 (NC), wherein the OP charged double price than the printed one i.e. printed price was Rs.75/- whereas the Op charged the price of Rs.150/-, thus the Hon’ble National Commission held it to be a case of unfair trade practice and directed the OP to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and further an amount of Rs.50 Lacs was ordered to be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund. We feel that the above citations are fully applicable in the circumstances of the present case.
6. The learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the OP has charged nothing excess nor there was any intention on the part of the OP in charging any excess amount, nor the complainant ever brought to the notice of the OP about the excess charging, as such, it is stated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. But, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the OP, more so when, it is proved on record that the OP charged Rs.15/- in excess from the complainant. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OP that why they charged in excess Rs.15/- from the complainant.
7. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.15/- and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum.
8. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
January 24, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
