HON’BLE MR. AYAN SINHA MEMBER This is a complaint u/s 35 of the CP Act, 2019, made by Dr. Pradip Kumar Basu against the OP, a restaurant namely, SONAR TORI alleging excess amount charged over printed MRP in mineral water bottles and accordingly prays for a direction to refund the excess price of the bottles i.e. Rs.132.50/- and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. FACTS IN BRIEF The Complainant being a senior citizen went to the restaurant of the OP on 20.11.2020 to have dinner with his family, where he had taken two bottles of Himalayan mineral water of one litre each. As alleged by the Complainant the printed MRP was Rs.65.00/- per bottle, but while he was presented the invoice being no. A0026564 for Rs.11,867.00/-, it was noticed by him that the said mineral water bottles were charged @ 125.00/- per bottle which is almost the double of the MRP amount as printed on the label. Moreover, 5% GST was also charged over and above the MRP. The Complainant addressed his grievance to the manager of the said restaurant, but he turned a deaf ear to his complaint and advised him to contact to the higher management of the OP. Thereafter, Complainant communicated the management through email on 23.11.2020 seeking amicable settlement. But the OP did not pay any heed to his complaint despite several reminder emails were sent. The Complainant had also lodged a complaint before the Consumer Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal, which was later on forwarded to the Legal Metrology Department, Government of West Bengal. Thus, Complainant finding no other way knocked the door of this Commission praying for certain relief(s) as discussed above. Notice was served upon the OP. OP contested this case by filing written version disputing the allegations of the complaint stating, inter alia, that they had given the option to the Complainant to choose RO (filter) or packaged drinking water where the RO (water) is served in the restaurant free of charges and the price of the packaged drinking water is charged as mentioned in the Menu Card of the said restaurant which shall attract GST over the price of each item. The Complainant voluntarily accepted the price of the packaged drinking water and placed the order accordingly. OP also stated in their written version that the allegations made by the Complainant was fictitious and made for unlawful gain for making money and therefore the OP had prayed to dismiss the instant complaint with cost in limine. Complainant adduced evidence to which OP filed questionnaires and replies thereto. OP by filing a petition on affidavit prayed to treat their written version as evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaires and replies thereto. Complainant personally pursued his case and both parties were present during the final course of hearing. OP filed Brief Notes of Argument. The only Point to be considered in the instant case is to, whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for. DECISION WITH REASONS We have perused all the documents and the annexures adduced by both the parties. It is an admitted fact the Complainant went to the restaurant of the OP for having dinner to which OP issued bill No. A0026564 dated 20.11.2020 for Rs.11,867/-. On further scrutiny of the said bill, it is noticed that the Complainant had two bottles of “Himalayan Mineral Water” which were charged @ 125/- X 2 bottles amounting to Rs.250/- and thereafter C.G.S.T and S.G.S.T was charged. Now the main contention of the Complainant is that he had been charged excess price over the printed MRP i.e. Rs.65/- as per the label claim of Mineral Water and the copy of label is annexed with the complaint petition and moreover 5 % GST had been charged over the excess price. The Complainant alleged that the menu card indicating the price of the Mineral Water bottles were not presented to him and he trusted upon the OP restaurant. On perusal of the written version and the annexures therein, it is noticed that the OP had annexed the copy of the menu card showing all prices of various food items starting from appetizer, main course and dessert items. But we have not found any copy of the menu card showing the prices of any mineral water or other soft drinks etc, however the main allegation of the Complainant is overcharging than the MRP mentioned on the label claim of the mineral water bottle. OP had relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.21790 of 2017 arising out of S.L.P (C) No.28685 of 2015, where the appellant’s had appealed as Controller of Weights and Measures was seeking to proceed against the Hotels and Restaurants of the Appellant Association for charging a price higher than the printed Maximum Retail Price (MRP in short) for supply of package water bottles during services provided to their customer while in Hotels and Restaurants and Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold: - “We are, therefore, of the view that neither the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 read with the enactment of 1985, or the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, would apply so as to interdict the sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants at prices which are above the MRP.” In The State of Punjab vs. M/s. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (1972) 1 SCC 472, Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, [1979] 1 SCR 557 and the review judgment in the latter case reported in (1980) 2 SCC 167 where the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold: “16. In the above analysis I hold that charging prices for mineral water in excess of MRP printed on the packaging, during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the SWM Act as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hotelier or Restaurateur to its customers. The customer does not enter a hotel or a restaurant to make a simple purchase of these commodities. It may well be that a client would order nothing beyond a bottle of water or a beverage, but his direct purpose in doing so would clearly travel to enjoying the ambience available therein and incidentally to the ordering of any article for consumption. Can there by any justifiable reason for the Court or Commission to interdict the sale of bottled mineral water other than at a certain price, and ignore the relatively exorbitant charge for a cup of tea or coffee. The response to this rhetorical query cannot but be in the negative. Although the vires of Rule 23 have been assailed, I do not find it necessary to answer that challenge since the provision relates to sales between dealers and neither the hotels and restaurants of the one part and customers of the other falls within this categorization.” In the instant case also, Complainant had not purchased the mineral water from any roadside shop, but had purchased the same from a restaurant where he had dinner and so the ambience and all amenities of the restaurants have to be considered also while paying excess price for any food or mineral water or aerated water and etc. Therefore, keeping in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited above and considering the facts and evidences, we hold that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief(s) as prayed for. In the end, Complainant has failed to succeed in proving his case. Hence it is ORDERED That the complaint Case No. CC/130/2022 and the same is being dismissed on contest with no order as to costs. Dictated and corrected by me Member | 
