Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/490

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ratnam Restaurants - Opp.Party(s)

Devan Verma Adv.

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 490 of 05.07.2016

   Date of Decision            :  29.11.2017

 

Rohit Kumar son of Sohan Kumar resident of village Kakowal Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus      

 

1.Shree Rathnam Restaurant, Punjab Foods and Catering Service, 4^th Floor Pavilion Mall, Near Fountain Chownk, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/its proprietor/partner/Managing Director/Authorized Person.

2.Manager, Shree Rathnam Restaurant, Punjab Foods and Catering Service, 4^th Floor Pavilion Mall, Near Fountain Chownk, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :         Sh.Devan Verma, Advocate

For Ops                         :         Sh.Devinder Sood, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant on 20.6.2016 visited the premises of OP1 in the company of his friends and purchased through little internet services limited, one packet of drinking water bottle of brand Kinley of 1 liter bearing MRP of Rs.20/- inscribed on its neck, but Ops charged Rs.35/- for the same. Service tax of Rs.2.10P even was charged. Rs.37/- in all were charged for this Kinley water bottle, despite the fact that it has an MRP of Rs.20/-. Complainant had to pay Rs.37/- in compelling circumstances because he was having dry throat and was to purchase the bottle. OP1 issued the bill No.2567 of 20.6.2016 showing the charging of Rs.37/- per mineral water. OPs even have not provided the basic facilities of drinking water and as such, they have violated the terms and conditions of Legal Meteorology (Package Commodity) Rules 2011 by rendering  the deficient services and adopting unfair trade practice. Prayer made for directing OPs to refund the excess charged amount and to discontinue the practice of charging price in excess of MRP. Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and       agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses also claimed.

2.                In written reply jointly filed by Ops, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable because document produced on record does not bear any signatures and same is forged and fabricated document generated by the complainant himself through computer. It is claimed that complainant cannot be declared as consumer on the basis of forged bill and that complaint is bad for non-joinder of the parties. Allegations regarding visit by the complainant to premises of OPs or of availing services on the basis of coupons denied. Rather, it is claimed that bottle in question was not sold by OPs to the complainant. Each and every other averment of the complaint  denied by claiming      that complaint has been filed on false and frivolous facts.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and then his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.DW1A of Sh.Shilpi Wadhawan, Partner of OP along with document Ex.DW1/1 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Complainant has produced on record bill Ex.C1 to establish that he purchased the mineral water bottle from OPs by paying price of Rs.37/- including service tax of amount of Rs.2.10P. This bill Ex.C1 bears TIN number along with phone number and as such, in view of this bill being computer generated, signatures of none were required. In view of mentioning of TIN number and phone number on Ex.C1 with address of OPs, it has to be held that this bill Ex.C1 cannot be termed as forged at all.

7.                Performa bill Ex.DW1/1, produced by OPs, mentions the place of business of OPs as 17-C GF, Sarabha Nagar, KIPPS Market, Ludhiana and that place is different than that of the place mentioned in bill Ex.C1 as Punjab Food & Catering Services, 4^th Floor, Pavilion Mall, Ludhiana and as such, it is obvious that bill Ex.DW1/1 dated 26.10.2017 may have been generated after lapse of one year and three months of filing of this complaint for creating evidence. This complaint was filed on 5.7.2016, but bill Ex.DW1/1 dated 26.10.2017 mentions GST number and not TIN number. GST enforced since from July 2017 and not before that and as such, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for complainant has force that TIN number used to be earlier mentioned by the dealers on bills issued by them. As purchase in question was made on 20.6.2016 and as such mention of TIN number specifically in Ex.C1 itself establishes that the bill was genuinely issued and it is not a forged bill. Rather, place of business of OPs mentioned in Ex.C1 is correct one, but the place of description of business of Punjab Foods             & Catering Services as mentioned in Ex.DW1/1 is other than the one mentioned in the complaint or in the summons      on which services of OPs effected. So, reliance on bill Ex.DW1/1 certainly cannot be placed in such circumstances because this bill generated after one year and three months of filing of complaint, may be for creating evidence. Genuine claim of a party must not be frustrated on technicalities or as and when the created/generated evidence produced and as such, case of the complainant certainly is believable that despite the MRP of Rs.20/-, Rs.37/- were charged from him by the OPs, while selling one liter packed drinking water bottle of brand kinley to him. Complainant in such circumstances entitled for the refund of excess charged amount of Rs.17/- with interest @6% per annum w.e.f.21.6.2016 till payment because the said amount charged in excess of MRP on 20.6.2016. In view of produced generated/created evidence by OPs, somewhat reasonable amount of compensation for mental harassment and agony and of litigation expenses should be allowed by directing Ops to pay those amounts within specified period, failing which,  to pay interest @6% per annum to the complainant w.e.f.       today till payment.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OPs will refund the excess charged amount of Rs.17/- with interest @6% per annum w.e.f. 21.06.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, complainant will be entitled to interest @6% per annum on these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses w.e.f. today till payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                   (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                             President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.11.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.