Complainant:       1)   Shri. Sangappa Basappa Kumbar

                                           Age:35 Yrs, Occ:Agriculture,

                                        R/o Abbigeri Tq: Ron Dist:Gadag.

                                        (Rep. by Shri. M.B. Sajjanar, Advocate)   

V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT. YASHOD.B.PATIL,WOMAN MEMBER

          The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.35 of the C.P. Act, 2019, seeking direction against the Op to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.    The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

            On 01.06.2022 complainant went to the Op Hotel along with his friends at night for dinner and ordered two KF strong 650 ML beer bottles. After verification of the bill the  amount charged was Rs.200/- instead of original price of Rs.160/-. The Op has charged an excess amount of Rs.80/- on enquiry, the Op stated that, they have taken service charges and the complainant has paid Rs.400/- for two bottles.  Therefore, Op has committed the deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint.

          3.   In pursuance of service of notice, OP appeared through his counsel.  He did not file written version within statutory period of 45 days from the date of service. Later filed I.A. No.1 with written version, I.A. No.1 came to be rejected, as written version was filed after statutory period and is not taken on record. 

        4. To prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit and was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9.

   5. The counsel for complainant argued and no argument was advanced by the counsel for OP.  

          6.   The points for consideration to us are as under:           

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service committed by the Op?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for

3. What Order?

    7.       Our findings on the above points are as under:

               Point No. 1:  In the  negative.

               Point No. 2:  In the negative.

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order.

R E A S O N S

            8.       Point No.1 & 2:- The point No.1 and 2 are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9, complainant has proved the deficiency of service.

          9.       On perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 has stated that, on 01.06.2022 complainant went to the Op Hotel along with his friends at night for dinner and ordered two KF strong 650 ML beer bottles. After verification of the bill the amount charged  was Rs.200/- instead of original price of Rs.160/- . The Op has charged an excess of Rs.80/-, on enquiry the Op stated that, they have taken service charges and the complainant paid Rs.400/- for two bottles.  Therefore, Op has committed the deficiency of service. Ex.C-1 parcel bill issued by Op dtd:01.06.2022, Rs.200/- charged for 650 ml per bottle and Ex.C-2 another parcel bill dtd:01.06.2022 charged,  Rs.200/- for liquor and Rs.16/- for Ground nut half in all Rs.216/-, Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 legal notice issued to Op, Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6 postal receipts, Ex.C-7 & Ex.C-8 Postal acknowledgments, reveal that, after service of notice Op did not respond. Ex.C-9 beer bottle produced to show the MRP rate of the King Fisher beer bottle. MRP rate is not in dispute. The fact for consideration is that, whether, the OP is have a right to entitle the service charge for supply of dinner and drinks inside the bar.    Of course, oral and documentary evidence of complainant has remained unchallenged, as Op did not file written version within a statutory period of 45 days, from the date of service, but filed beyond statutory period and the said written version is not taken on record.

10. It is settled principle is that, burden of proving is always on the complainant, who is seeking relief. The main grievance of the complainant is that, the Op charged excess of Rs.40/-  per bottle instead of  Rs.160/- on two bottles. Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2  reveal that, the liquor was served with half ground nut through table service, table No.P-C and steward name is 5-Raghu and GSTIN No.29AADFH8620E3ZE. So, it shows that complainant has not purchased the beer bottles on counter. The complainant has himself specifically stated in his complaint that, he along with his friends had been for dinner at night to the OP Lodging Boarding and Restaurant on 01.06.2022 and ordered for beer bottles and the Op has charged an excess amount for liquor, which can be perused in Ex.C-2 that at table No.P-C steward by name Raghu has given service to the said complainant. This goes to show that, the complainant and his friends had ordered for the liquor and availed the service on table itself.  So, excess charge of Rs.40/- per bottle as per Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 cannot be considered stating that the Op charged excess amount instead of MRP rate. Op being a license holder for running Lodging Boarding and Restaurant excess amount was charged for service and other miscellaneous items supplied. Ex.C-2 reveals that, Rs.16/- extra amount is charged for supply of half Ground nut. Such being the case, we come to a conclusion that, there is no deficiency of service is committed by the Op.

11. The learned counsel for complainant is relying decision in Risha Mohanty V/s Proprietor, Four Petal’s by Varenya’s CC No.25/22 (Khurda DCDRC) Dtd:23.12.2022, wherein it is held that, there cannot be two MRP’s except in accordance with law. A service provider cannot charge an amount more than the MRP.

On careful reading of above decision, facts, circumstances and ratio is not similar with case on hand, as the above said case is pertaining to Hotels and Restaurants, but, the present case on hand is regarding Lodging Boarding and Restaurant.

Further, in another decision Charanjit Kaur V/s More Super Market and Another dtd:25.09.2020, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras has held that, the Opposite parties charged Rs.5/- more than the MRP on the said tooth paste from the complainant, which certainly amounts to deficiency in service and adopts of unfair trade practice on their part.

On careful reading of above decision, facts, circumstances and ratio is not similar with case on hand, as the above said case is pertaining to More Super Market, but the present case on hand is regarding Lodging Boarding and Restaurant. So, both decisions are not helpful to the complainant.

As per order passed in an appeal No.930/15, dtd:30.08.2018 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru  it has set aside an order passed by this Commission.  Wherein, it is observed in para No.10 as under:-

          “ In this connection the advocate for the appellant places reliance on a circular issued by Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India dtd:24.01.2012, it is for covering expenses and other facilities provided in the premises service charges would be levied additionally.  This aspect was not at all considered by the District Forum while allowing the complaint.  It is also not the case of the complainant that he had purchased only beer on that day and that there was no any additional items supplied to him.  Under circumstances, the impugned order is not consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case.  The reasons assigned by the District Forum are not just and correct”.

The facts and circumstances of the above case is similar with case on hand.

           12. For the above reasons complainant has failed to prove that, OP has committed the deficiency of service and is therefore not entitled for the relief as sought for. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 & 2 in the negative.  

          13. Point No.3:-In the result, we pass the following: 

  //O R D E R//

The complaint filed U/Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

         Further, Ex.C-9 King Fisher beer bottle is ordered to be returned to complainant immediately.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 18^th  day of March-2023)

 (Shri Raju N. Metri)     Shri. D.Y. Basapur)  (Smt.Yashoda Baskar.Patil)

        MEMBER                       PRESIDENT                 WOMAN MEMBER

-: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1: Sri. Sangappa Basappa Kumbar

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 & 2 : Parcel bills

Ex.C-3 & 4 : Legal notice.

Ex.C-5 & 6 : Postal receipts.

Ex.C-7 & 8 : Postal acknowledgments.

Ex.C-9: King Fisher beer bottle.  

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

             NIL

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs

           NIL

(Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)    (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

        MEMBER               PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER