Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that complainant visited the establishment/cafeteria of Opposite Party alongwith his sister and her child and ordered food items from them. Prior to leaving the Cafeteria, the complainant placed an order for regular Pizza and one Can of Coke to be taken away. At the time of paying the bill for Pizza and Coke Can, the complainant was astonished to find that the cashier charged rupees 5 more than the MRP for the Coke Can. The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of cashier of Opposite Party, but he not only failed to provide a valid reason for this overcharge of said Coke Can, but he also unnecessarily abused the complainant and his relatives. The said act and conduct of employee of Opposite Party is nothing but a great violation of Consumer Protection Law. Alleged that crucial GST details were conspicuously missing on the said bill. The non disclosure of GST on the bill is a direct violation of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Complainant also sent a legal notice to Opposite Party, but to no effect. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to compensate the complainant for an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and to refund Rs.5 which was overcharged by them from the complainant.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

c)       And any other relief which this Commission deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Upon service of notice, none has come present on behalf of the Opposite Party, hence Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 14.12.2023.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill issued by Opposite Party Ex.C2, copy of the legal notice Ex.C3, copy of postal receipt Ex.C4 and copy of aadhar card Ex.C5.

 4.       We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

5.       The unopposed case of the complainant is that complainant visited the establishment/cafeteria of Opposite Party alongwith his relatives and placed an order for regular Pizza and one Can of Coke, copy of the bill Ex.C2 is evident of this fact. Further it is submitted that at the time of paying the bill for Pizza and Coke Can, he noticed that Opposite Party charged rupees 5 more than the MRP for the Coke Can. The complainant immediately brought the matter to the notice of cashier of Opposite Party, but to no effect. Alleged further that GST details were also missing on the bill. Also it is submitted that complainant duly issued legal notice dated 06.10.2023 to the Opposite Party for the redressal of his grievance, but all in vain.

To corroborate his aforesaid assertion, the Complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, copy of postal receipt Ex.C4 and copy of aadhar card Ex.C5. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has produced on record photographs of the CAN in dispute, which are Mark-A to Mark-C. The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as the Opposite party opt not to appear and contest the proceedings.  In this way, the Opposite party has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint.

6.       So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged  evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that  the Opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice by charging more than the MRP. Also it is proved on record that Opposite Party rendered deficient services when it failed to redress the grievance of the complainant besides been issued legal notice dated 06.10.2023 and forced the complainant to file the present complaint.

7.       In view of this, we found that there is certainly a deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.  On this count, the Complainant prayed before this District Consumer Commission to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment, but we are of the view that the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant be awarded with lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and we award the same accordingly.

8.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as compensation to the complainant for resorting to unfair trade practice and for rendering deficient services towards complainant. Also the Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.5/- to the complainant, which has been overcharged by them. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Party is further burdened with additional cost of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission