Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
- Baljot Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant had gone to Stars N Bars on 8.7.2016 at 3 p.m.for lunch and placed an order for Tandoori Platter, Chicken Tikka Masala, Mineral water etc. which the opposite party served very late. After taking lunch, the complainant and his friends asked for the bill. The complainant was surprised to see the price of kinley Mineral water bottle and that of the Kingfisher Beer Bottle charged to them in the bill was Rs. 69/- and Rs. 239/- respectively which is much exorbitant than the MRP mentioned on the neck of the bottles and are easily available in the market for the price of Rs. 20/- and Rs. 150/- respectively. When the complainant questioned the Manager regarding the same, he was told that he had came to their five star multinational restaurant and had problem over few rupees water and beer bottle. He further asked the complainant that he should have gone to some local or cheap restaurant. The complainant felt so embarrassment before his friends and other people present in the restaurant. The complainant was left with no other choice but to pay the hefty price charged in the bill and left the restaurant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite party be directed to refund the excess price charged from the complainant for the kinley water bottle and that of Kingfisher Beer Bottle ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- be also awarded to the complainant ;
- Opposite party be also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/- alongwith Rs. 15000/- alongwith interest @ 25% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization .
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that upon placing an order by the complainant, opposite party has not only provided food to the complainant but has also provided ambiance, air conditioned environment, fine crockery, furniture, waiters, cleaning, music etc and the opposite party has a right to charge for these additional services. Prices of food, beverages , water etc are mentioned on Menu. The complainant was at liberty to eat food and consumer beverages or not and if after verifying prices mentioned on Menu card, complainant has placed order, then complainant is stopped from challenging price of food and beverages . Bill placed by the complainant of water bottle might be of inferior quality bottle and without cooling the bottle. It is not out of place to mention that mineral bottle was served to the complainant and that too chilled in air conditioned environment and opposite party incur expenses on air conditioning and cooling of water bottles by way of refrigeration and has a right to charge higher prices and this is the reason of price difference as printed on bottle and as mentioned in Menu card. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA, copy of bill Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of bill Ex.C-3, retail invoice dated 7.3.2017 Ex.C-4, copy of Government of Punjab notification dated 23.3.2016 Mark X and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sunil Nayyar,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Virand Makhni Ex.OP1, copy of Menu Card Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and has submitted that complainant alongwith his friends took lunch in opposite party restaurant . In this regard opposite party issued bill Ex.C-1 to the complainant. It was the case of the complainant that opposite party charged the price of kinley Mineral water bottle to the tune of Rs. 69/- and Kingfisher Beer Bottle to the tune of Rs. 239/- which is much exorbitant than the MRP mentioned on the neck of the bottles i.e. Rs. 20/- for Kinley Mineral water bottle and Rs. 150/- for Kingfisher Beer bottle. In this regard complainant has placed on record copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 showing the price of Mineral water as Rs. 20/-. However, when the complainant questioned regarding the charging of exorbitant amount, opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant .
7. On the other hand opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that upon placing an order by the complainant, opposite party has not only provided food to the complainant but has also provided ambiance, air conditioned environment, fine crockery, furniture, waiters, cleaning, music etc and the opposite party has a right to charge for these additional services. Prices of food, beverages , water etc are mentioned on Menu. The complainant was at liberty to eat food and consumer beverages or not and if after verifying prices mentioned on Menu card, complainant has placed order, then complainant is stopped from challenging price of food and beverages Bill placed by the complainant of water bottle might be of inferior quality bottle and without cooling the bottle. It is not out of place to mention that mineral bottle was served to the complainant and that too chilled in air conditioned environment and opposite party incur expenses on air conditioning and cooling of water bottles by way of refrigeration and has a right to charge higher prices and this is the reason of price difference as printed on bottle and as mentioned in Menu card. Ld.counsel for the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that opposite party charged the price of kinley Mineral water bottle to the tune of Rs. 69/- which is much exorbitant than the MRP mentioned on the neck of the bottles i.e. Rs. 20/- for Kinley Mineral water bottle . In this regard complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.C-1 . The complainant has also placed on record copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 showing the price of the mineral water as Rs. 20/-. However, the only plea of the opposite party that they have not only provided food to the complainant but has also provided ambiance, air conditioned environment, fine crockery, furniture, waiters, cleaning, music etc and the opposite party has a right to charge for these additional services. Prices of food, beverages , water etc are mentioned on Menu and the complainant after verifying prices mentioned on Menu card, has placed order. But, however, opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove the abovesaid fact that the opposite party can charge more than the MRP on account of providing ambiance, air conditioned environment, fine crockery, furniture, waiters, cleaning, music etc. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the Opposite Party has indulged in gross unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Opposite Party could not charge the price of the Kinley Mineral water bottle in dispute in excess to the MRP that was to the tune of Rs.20/- only. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of difference in MRP, from the Opposite Party. In support of this contention, we find support from D.K.Chopra-Petitioner Vs. Snack Bar-Respondent 2014(2) CPJ 493 (NC) wherein it has been held that there has been a large number of incidents of exploitation of ‘consumers’ leading to a constant urge of a panacea. To protect the ‘consumers’ from the excessive prices charged by the Traders, it is provided that the State declared the rates for the purchase and sale of all marketable commodities, in order to protect the ‘consumers’ from arbitrary exploitation by the Traders. It is clear that the respondent has been earned crores of ruppes. It led the customers up the garden parth. The ‘can’ does not mention that the OP can charge ‘double’ of the MRP. It has been further held that MRP itself, includes the commission/ profit, for a ‘shop-keeper’. Under these circumstances, we accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the fore below and allow the complaint. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, within 90 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till realization. However, it is not the end of the road. The Opposite Party has exploited the public, prior to, and after the incident. The public was taken for a ride, under the very nose of the Airport Authority. The OP has no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must got back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OP will deposit a sum of Rs.50 lacs, the estimated rough amount, with the Consumer Welfare Fund, by means of a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer-Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi, within 90 days, from the receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. Therefore, the Register of this Commission shall report. Revision Petition allowed. Further reliance has been placed in Ajay Pal Singh Vs. Baskin Robbins, First Appeal No. 644 of 2013 decided on 20.7.2015 by Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein in similar set of facts, the Opposite Party was found to be deficient in providing the service to the complainant as also of adopting unfair trade practice. Apparently, the Opposite Party is regularly indulging in this practice of sale of items not listed in its menu card at much higher price than the MRP to fleece the innocent customers, who visit its premises. In view of the above findings, the appeal of the appellant/ complainant is partly allowed with a cost of Rs.3000/- and the respondent/ Opposite Party is directed to refund to the complainant Rs.40/- charged in excess than the MRP. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation, for indulging in unfair trade practice, out of which Rs.5,000/- be paid to the complainant and the remaining amount of R.20,000/- be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund of this Commission. This order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. Impugned order of the District Forum is set aside.
9. From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that Opposite Party has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging Rs.69/- while the MRP of the mineral water bottle was Rs.20/- only and whereby overcharged Rs.49/- from the complainant which the Opposite Party is under legal obligation to refund the same to the complainant forthwith. So far as compensation regarding unfair trade practice as well as mental agony and harassment to the complainant is concerned, the complainant is entitled to receive as much compensation to offset the loss occasioned to him. It is settled principle of law that no exorbitant compensation can be awarded to enrich a party at the cost of the other party. Therefore, the claim of the complainant for grant of hefty amount as compensation, is not tenable. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousands only) and which is awarded accordingly while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Dated : 12.5.2017
