| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.361-14 Date of Institution:07-07-2014 Date of Decision:18-03-2015 Gurkirat Singh son of S.Sharanpal Singh, resident of Plot No.12, Baba Budha Ji Colony, Tarn Taran Road, Amritsar. Complainant Versus Sagar Ratna ARJ Ventures, Queens Road, Amritsar. Opposite Party Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Present: For the Complainant: In person. For the Opposite Party: Sh.Ashwani Kumar, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurkirat Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he alongwith his family visited Opposite Party at about 9.30 PM for dinner at Table No.4/FF. Complainant alleges that he ordered total nine items including two bottles of mineral water. The Opposite Party provided the Kinley Mineral Water bottles and after finishing the dinner, the complainant was shocked after seeing the charges of two Kinley Mineral Water bottles which were extremely over charged excluding VAT @ 14.3%. The Opposite Party charged @ Rs.32/- per Kinley Mineral Water bottle instead of Rs.20/- as MRP. The complainant asked the attendant of the Opposite Party for such an exorbitant rates, but the attendant of the Opposite Party told that they were charging according to the menu card of the restaurant and they will not make any change in the bill for Kinley Mineral Water bottles and the complainant could do anything what he wanted. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1 lac.
- On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant after going through the contents and price list of the goods/ eatables from the Menu Card, placed order of his own, without any pressure or otherwise and after placing the order, he enjoyed the food and never objected to the same at any point of time. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party can not make any change in the bill for any item as the price list of every eatable/ product is fixed by main company M/s.Sagar Ratna Hotels Private limited and the Opposite Party being only an agent/ franchise of such chain of hotels and is carrying on its business under their directions and instructions and the bill is maintained online by the said Hotel. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sunny Arora, Partner, Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant alongwith his family members visited Opposite Party Restaurant on 29.6.2014 at about 9.30 PM for dinner. The complainant ordered 9 items including two bottles of mineral water. After dinner, the Opposite Party gave bill bearing No. 21899 dated 29.6.2014 to the complainant which is Ex.C3. Vide this bill, the Opposite Party charged for Kinley Mineral Water bottle @ Rs.32/- per bottle from the complainant whereas the Kinley Mineral Water bottle supplied by the Opposite Party to the complainant bearing MRP Rs.20/-. Photograph of the said part of the bottle is Ex.C4. The complainant raised the query to the cashier of the Opposite Party, but he replied that Opposite Party was charging the price of the product according to the Menu Card of the restaurant and not on the basis of MRP printed on the bottle/ product. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service, rather unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party-Restaurant.
- Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant placed an order after going through the contents and price list of the goods/ eatables from the Menu Card of the Opposite Party-Restaurant. After placing the order, the complainant enjoyed the food and did not object to the same at any point of time, so he should not be allowed to raise this question at this stage. The Opposite Party denied that they were extremely over charging the price of the product. The Opposite Party supplied the goods to the customer as per contents and price list of the goods/ eatables as mentioned in the Menu Card of the Opposite Party and the complainant has placed order of his own without any pressure. The Opposite Party can not make any change in the bill for any item as the price list of every eatable/ product is fixed by main company M/s.Sagar Ratna Hotels Private limited and the Opposite Party being only an agent of such chain of hotels and is carrying on its business under their directions and instructions and the bill is maintained online by the said Hotel. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that while taking dinner at the Opposite Party Restaurant on 29.6.2014 the complainant and his family, alongwith other items purchased two bottles of Kinley Mineral Water from Opposite Party and the Opposite Party charged from the complainant @ Rs.32/- per Kinley Mineral Water bottle i.e. in all Rs.64/- for two Kinley Mineral Water bottles from the complainant as per bill Ex.C3, whereas the Kinley Mineral Water bottle supplied by the Opposite Party to the complainant was containing MRP Rs.20/- only, as is evident from photograph of the said Kinley Mineral Water bottle produced by the complainant Ex.C4. So it stands fully proved on record that the Opposite Party charged Rs.32/- per Kinley Mineral Water bottle instead of Rs.20/- MRP of the said Kinley Mineral Water bottle from the complainant vide bill Ex.C3. The plea of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party Restaurant has Menu Card Ex.OP2 on which they have mentioned the price of Kinley Mineral Water bottle as Rs.32/- per bottle and the complainant has placed an order for the supply of Kinley Mineral Water bottle after going through Menu Card Ex.OP2, so the Opposite Party was justified in charging Rs.32/- per Kinley Mineral Water bottle from the complainant. Here we do not agree with the contention of the Opposite Party because the Opposite Party can charge money for the services or other items produced by the Opposite Party itself, the price of which could be fixed by the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party has no right to change the MRP of the product fixed by the company that produces/ manufactures the same, by simply writing its price on the Menu Card. Menu Card is not the authenticated and approved list of price of products. The Opposite Party has no right to fix its own price for the product, maximum price of which has been fixed by the company who manufactures/ produces the same. If the restaurant is allowed to change the MRP of the product, then there shall remain no legal sanctity behind MRP fixed by the producer/ manufacturer. Then every restaurant/ hotel or rest house shall fix their own price of the product ignoring the MRP of the product.
- Consequently, we hold that the Opposite Party has charged excessive rate of Kinley Mineral Water bottle from the complainant i.e. Rs.32/- per bottle instead of Rs.20/- MRP, thereby the Opposite Party has certainly committed ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ which tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- Resultantly, we allow the complainant with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- (five thousands only) to the complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 18.03.2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma) Member Member | |
