Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/477/2019

M/s McDonalds Family Restaurant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Bishamber Dayal Meena s/o Chain Sukh Meena - Opp.Party(s)

Reetu Agarwal

27 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 478/2019

 

M/s. McDonald's Family Restaurant, Golcha Point, Panch Batti, M.I.Road, Jaipur Being operated by M/s,Cannaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Surya Pratap Singh s/o Bhim Singh r/o Flat No. 117-118 Vinayak Residency, Vinayak Vihar-D, Rawan Gate, kalwad Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 477/2019

 

M/s. McDonald's Family Restaurant, Golcha Point, Panch Batti, M.I.Road, Jaipur Being operated by M/s,Cannaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Bishamber Dayal Meena s/o Chain sukh Meena r/o 142 Nandpuri, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. & ors.

 

 

2

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 479/2019

 

M/s. McDonald's Family Restaurant, Golcha Point, Panch Batti, M.I.Road, Jaipur Being operated by M/s,Cannaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Satish Kumar s/o Niranjan Lal r/o 16 Jaitpuri colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 27.9.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member

 

Ms.Reetu Agarwal counsel for the appellants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

All these appeals are filed against the similar order hence, are decided by this common order. The matter has come upon application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal

3

 

is filed with delay of 25 days. Looking at the facts mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

The contention of the appellant is that they are not deficient. Price of the article sold was rounded of in rupees and it was never concealed from the consumer. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Without going into the merit of the case it has been pointed out that matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 689/2015 M/s. McDonald's Family Restaurant Vs. Nisha Goyal where it has been held that charging the amount above the agreed amount is deficiency on the part of the appellant and appeal was dismissed. There the incident was of 2012. Now we are running in 2019 but same unfair trade practice is being continued by the appellants.

 

In view of the above , all these appeals are liable to be dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- cost which should be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund within one month otherwise it will carry 9% interest from the date of the order and further u/s 14

4

 

(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, it is ordered to the appellant to discontinue the unfair trade practice of charging in excess of the value of the goods and a undertaking of discontinuence of the above unfair trade practice be submitted by the person incharge of the affair of appellants.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm