Delhi

New Delhi

CC/472/2017

Paripoorn Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Burger Club Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC/472/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Mr. Paripoorn Singh

R/o G-186, Sector-23, Raj Nagar,

Ghaziabad – 201002, U.P.                                          ….Complainant

VERSUS

 

1. M/s The Burger Club Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Through its Directors

Regd. Office at:-

Z-9 First Floor, Rajouri Garden,

Delhi West, Delhi – 110027.

Branch Office:-

A-22, A Block, Connaught Place,

New Delhi – 110001.

 

2. Dilpreet Kaur

Director,

Regd. Office at:-

Z-9 First Floor, Rajouri Garden,

Delhi West, Delhi – 110027.

       Branch Office:-

          A-22, A Block, Connaught Place,

  New Delhi – 110001.

 

3. Jasbir Kaur

Director

Regd. Office at:-

Z-9 First Floor, Rajouri Garden,

Delhi West, Delhi – 110027.

         Branch Office:-

        A-22, A Block, Connaught Place,

  New Delhi – 110001.

 

 

4. Sumit Singh

Director,

Regd. Office at:-

Z-9 First Floor, Rajouri Garden,

Delhi West, Delhi – 110027.

Branch Office:-

A-22, A Block, Connaught Place,

New Delhi – 110001.                                                         ....Opposite Parties

 

Quorum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad, Member

Shri Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                                                                                                Date of Institution:- 12.10.2017                                                                                                                                                                        Date of Order          :-  30.01.2023

 

 

ORDER

 

Per Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case set up by the complainant is that the opposite party no. 1 is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Z-9, First Floor, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi – 110027 and branch office at A-22, A Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110027. The Opposite Party No. 1 is engaged in the business of fast food services and is a service provider within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Directors of opposite party no.1 and are responsible for the day to day management, transactions, conventions, communications, relations, revenue, benefits/losses and deliverance of services and promises thereof.
2. It is submitted that on 28.08.2017 at around 06:38 PM, the complainant's colleague called at the Branch office address of the opposite party No. 1 and ordered and paid for 10 Veg Club Burgers, 4 Original Cut Fries and 3 Cokes, to be delivered at his office situated at 406, Mercantile House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. After making the order, the opposite party no. 1 sent the aforementioned order through the delivery boy but before making the payment the complainant checked his order and found that the coke he ordered was not sent to him.
3. The complainant again made a call to the opposite party no.1 branch office and complained about the irresponsible and unprofessional conduct on the part of the opposite party and asked the opposite party No. 1 to make the delivery of the coke as soon as possible.
4. The opposite party after sometime sent three bottles of coke of 200 ml each to the complainant. The MRP mentioned on the coke bottle was Rs. 20/-, but when the complainant saw the price of the coke mentioned on the bill, the opposite party had charged Rs. 82/- for each coke which was clearly an excessive amount of Rs. 62/- on each coke.
5. However,  the complainant made the entire payment of Rs. 1014/- inclusive of all taxes to the delivery boy but feeling aggrieved at the hands of the opposite party, the complainant made a call to the opposite party branch office. The complainant's call was received by one Mr. Kuldeep, cashier in the opposite party office and he was apprised of this fact. The complainant demanded the refund of excessive amount charged by the opposite party.
6. As alleged by the complainant, after a long conversation between the complainant and the official of the opposite party No. 1, nothing fruitful emerged hence the complainant asked him to transfer the call to his Manager namely Mr. Mukul Kohli. After some discussion, the manager refused to exceed to the demand of the complainant. On asking the reason for charging excess amount than the MRP, the manager replied that the cost of the medium coke which is charged in the bill is same as they charge in the restaurant, though the bottle which was sent to the complainant bears the cost as Rs. 20/-.  Despite repeated efforts made by the complainant to refund the money which was taken by the opposite party no.1 by charging excess amount than the MRP, the opposite party clearly refused to pay the excess amount to the complainant.
7. Being left with no other option, the Complainant got a legal notice dated 01.09.2017 served upon the Opposite Party through his counsel calling upon the Opposite Party to refund the excessive amount charged. The Complainant further claimed damage and compensation towards the mental trauma and harassment caused to him. The Complainant called upon the Opposite Party to respond to the said notice within 15 days. The said notice was delivered to the Opposite Party on 04.09.2017 as per Postal Tracking Report. However, it was not responded by the opposite party.
8. The complainant states that the acts, deeds and conducts of the opposite party amount to offence as the opposite party/(s) have dishonestly charged excessive amount than the MRP for the wrongful gains.
9. Thus the complainant states that the Opposite Party herein has deliberately cheated on the Complainant and therefore the Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 186/-  along with 18% interest per annum. It is further submitted that the mental agony of the Complainants cannot be compensated in monetary terms, however, the damages for the mental agony has been quantified as Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). Therefore, the complainant prays for directions to the Opposite Party/(s) to refund the excess amount charged alongwith 18% interest p.a. He has further prayed for award of damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the complainant towards the mental agony and trauma caused by the opposite parties and cost of present legal proceedings.
10. In reply to the complaint, the opposite party submits that the submissions of the complainant is contrary to the successive judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Suprme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court, wherein it has been held consumption of articles of food or drinks in hotels and restaurants do not constitute a sale and no prohibition has been imposed by the statute to sell any commodity in excess of the price stated on its package. The statue merely required the price of the commodity to be reflected on the package. To strengthen his arguments, counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(1) FEDERATION OF HOTELS & RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & Ors. v/s UOI, Civil Appeal No. 21790 of 2017, decided on 12^th December, 2017;

2.  State of H.P. Vs. Associated Hotels of India AIR 1972 SC 1131; and
3.  Northern India Caterers India Ltd Vs. Li Governor of Delhi 1979 1 SCR 557

11. The submissions of the opposite party is that the Hon’ble Suprme Court has held in the successive judgments that consumption of articles of food or drinks in hotels and restaurants do not constitute a sale and no prohibition has been imposed by the statute to sell any commodity in excess of the price stated on its package. The statue merely required the price of the commodity to be reflected on the package.
12. To contradict the claim of the complainant, the opposite party submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that there is no room for arguments that the supply or service of eatables and dinks in hotels and restaurants does not partake of the nature of a "sale" in common legal parlance. Hence, when a person goes to a hotel or restaurant and while he is there orders and consumes such commodities this does not fall within the definition of "consumer" as contained in Sec. 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus in view of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof or to proceed in the matter. Thus, the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
13. We have considered the facts of the case and gone through the record including the law cited by the opposite party. In view of the law laid down

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred hereinabove, we do not find any force in the present complaint. The Same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear own costs.

A copy of this order be provided/sent to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

 

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY

                                                           (President)

BARIQ AHMAD                                    SHEKHAR CHANDRA

(Member)                                                       ( Member)