Order No. 24 Dated 25/05/2016
The case of the complainant in short is that on the occasion of Biswakarma Puja, complainant placed some order of food staff namely – (i) 20 packets of mutton biryani @ Rs.105/- per packet = Rs.2100/-, (ii) 10 packets of chicken biryani @ 105/- per packet = Rs.1050/-, (iii) 8 packets of chicken reshmi kebab @ Rs.130/- per packet – Rs.1040/-, total bill valued at Rs.4190/-.
To the surprise of the complainant when the packets were opened, it was found that 5 pieces of chicken reshmi kebab were found short in each packet and not supplied in the packet of the aluminium foil, out of 8 packets supplied. The rate of chicken reshmi kebab per packet Rs.130/- containing 5 pieces was to be supplied in the aluminium foil. Out of the 8 packets supplied by o.p. one piece of reshmi kebab found short in 5 packets, the value of which comes to Rs.130/-.
On the holy occasion some guests were invited to participate in the lunch, but unfortunately when the packets were distributed some of them found 4 pieces of kebab in lieu of chicken reshmi kebab, in 5 packets. Complainant was surprised to see that such less quantity of chicken reshmi kebab was supplied. It is more surprising that a renowned restaurant like Shiraz Golden Restaurant has supplied less quantity of chicken reshmi kebab, which was covered in the aluminium foil delivered on ‘take away’ system. Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In their w/v o.p. stated that complainant on the day of Biswakarma Puja purchased 20 packets of mutton biryani, 10 packets of chicken biryani and 8 packets of chicken reshmi kebab, totaling of Rs.4190/- from o.p. When complainant, after reaching home opened the packets of chicken reshmi kebab and found 5 pieces of kebab are short in each and not supplied in aluminium foils out of the 8 packets supplied. The rate of chicken reshmi kebab is Rs.130/- per packet containing 5 pieces supplied in aluminium foils. Out of the 8 packets supplied by o.p. 1 piece of chicken reshmi kebab was found short in 5 packets and the value of which comes to Rs.130/-. The guests for whom the packets were ordered could not be provided sufficiently and complainant was very embarrassed.
O.p. stated that the aluminium foil packs are supplied in case of home deliveries and the foils packs charges are taken separately. Moreover, the bills produced by complainant do not reflect the extra charges with regard to aluminium foil packs at all.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that to the surprise of the complainant when the packets were opened, it was found that 5 pieces of chicken reshmi kebab were found short in each packet and not supplied in the packet of the aluminium foil, out of 8 packets supplied. Out of the 8 packets supplied by o.p. one piece of reshmi kebab found short in 5 packets, the value of which comes to Rs.130/-. It further appears from the record that complainant made contrary averments vide para 3 and 5 of the petition of complaint.
We further find from the record that complainant on the day of Biswakarma Puja purchased 20 packets of mutton biryani, 10 packets of chicken biryani and 8 packets of chicken reshmi kebab, totaling of Rs.4190/- from o.p. When complainant, after reaching home opened the packets of chicken reshmi kebab and found 5 pieces of kebab are short in each and not supplied in aluminium foils out of the 8 packets supplied. The rate of chicken reshmi kebab is Rs.130/- per packet containing 5 pieces supplied in aluminium foils. Out of the 8 packets supplied by o.p. 1 piece of chicken reshmi kebab was found short in 5 packets and the value of which comes to Rs.130/-. The guests for whom the packets were ordered could not be provided sufficiently and complainant was very embarrassed that complainant made self contrary averments and has failed to make out the case and at the same time we find that that complainant has not come in clean hand.
Considering the above findings and on perusal of the entire materials on record we are of the views that complainant has failed to substantiate and prove his case and is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.