District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh

CC/901/2019

BEFORE:

          RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

          SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

          SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

PRESENT:

None for complainant.

Dated : 6^th September, 2019

ORDER

1.      The protest of the complainant is, he used to place order through the website of OP-1 owned by OP-2 and in the outlet of OP-3 for food items named chicken momos etc. which per menu was charged Rs.200/- in addition to delivery charges of Rs.10/-. On 4.5.2019 the complainant placed order for 2 chicken momos + 1 Veg. momos through OP-1 for Rs.380/- and Rs.180/- respectively in addition to the delivery charges of Rs.10/- and he was charged Rs.190/- for the said items. Again when order was placed on 19.5.2019 total amount charged was Rs.190/- for one portion.  On 3.8.2019 when the order was placed, total amount charged was Rs.200/- and further on 4.8.2019 and 20.7.2019 the amount charged was Rs.200/- alongwith delivery charges at home. 
2.      His further case, on 11.8.2019 he visited the outlet of OP-3 and was shocked to see the actual price of the food item was Rs.170/- only.  It is on this ground overcharging has been allegated which is said to be unfair trade practice and the complainant has come to this Forum for redressal of his grievance by award of compensation etc. by this Forum.
3.      The net conclusion from this pleading is, rates of the food items vary from day to day or week to week. Even the visit of the complainant to OP-3 on 11.8.2019 will not help him as it was rate of the said date which was Rs.170/- only.  It was at the outlet while the remaining services were taken at residence.  It is for the OPs to quote the price and it varies from time to time. Overcharging can only be construed if the District Magistrate, Chandigarh fixes the maximum price of the food items and notification to this effect is issued under the Essential Commodities Act and in violation of that, the restaurant charges the amount over and above the rate fixed. Otherwise, it cannot be said the amount was overcharged particularly so when the MRP of the items was not fixed by the District Magistrate.
4.      Certainly the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not the regulator of the price of the items and the variation is of different dates and not of the same date and in different situations. Prima facie we do not find any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the consumer complaint, at preliminary stage.
5.      The certified copies of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.