PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 190/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Tabassum Banoo,

W/O-Seikh Abdul Kalam,

R/O-Sonapali Near Gausiya Masjid, Po-Dhankauda, Ps-Dhanupali,

Dist- Sambalpur-768006, Odisha.

Mob-9777804333                                                          ……………..Complainant

Vrs

The Director/Partner/Proprietor of M/s Cafe Mar of Tito’ lane 2,

Saunta Vaddo, Calangute, Goa-403516,

Mob-08080015102                                                        ……….....Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-Sk. Abdul Salam, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P.                        :-Sri. A.K. Patro, Adv. & Associates

Date of Filing:18.06.2024,  Date of Hearing :02.09.2024 Date of Judgement : 30.09.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainants is that the Complainant and her husband had gone to Goa on 24.04.2024and had a lunch at the OP’s restaurant. For this the restaurant charged Rs. 972/- (819 including 5% GST for food bill and Rs. 84 for packaged minerals sealed water including GST i.e Rs. 80+4 ) charged which is of Rs. 20/- MRP of Bailley Co. with batch no. 0915. As Complainant and her husband opposed to pay packaged drinking water amount over and above MRP i.e Rs. 80 instead of Rs. 20/- for this type of illegal trade of practice, as the restaurant’s waiter only provide sealed packaged minerals water and did not pour/serve water into the glass. So, they make argument that packaged drinking water bottle sold beyond the MRP and GST cannot be charged on and over the MRP. They had a hot argument on this illegal trade of practice but the restaurant staff denied to listen at all and made a rude behavior. Finally, no result came and they paid the entire bill including packaged drinking water. If a restaurant/other shop is found charging GST over MRP, it would be considered as an unfair trade practice and violation of legal provisions. Hence this case. 
2. The Written Version of the OP is that the proceedings initiated by the Complainant under the Act are nonest, null and void and without jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in the State of Goa. So also the Director/Proprietor of the OP is also residing permanently in Goa. The Complainant was not provided with packed mineral water bottle as alleged but it was opened and served in the glasses by the waiters of the OP. The staff of the OP provided bill as per the rules of the items ordered and consumed by the Complainant and the Complainant without any arguments quietly paid the bills to the OP and left the Restaurant. The Complainant has filed the present complaint after thought in order to harass and give mental agony to the OP. The allegations made by the Complainant in the complaint are absolutely wrong and the Complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
3. From the records and evidences, it is observed that the OP has charged/bill Rs. 80/- for a bottle of mineral water though the M.R.P for the said water bottle is Rs. 20/-. The Complainant protested for excess and illegal price and requested to prepare correct bill of the items, but the OP bluntly denied and told that the OP is charging Rs. 80/- for each bottle of mineral water. In India, the maximum retail price (MRP) printed on packaged products is the legally mandated maximum price that can be charged for that item. According to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and related rules, it is generally not permissible for a restaurant or any other retailer to charge more than the MRP for a packaged water bottle or other pre-packaged consumer goods. Restaurants and eateries are also considered retailers under the law and are prohibited from charging above the MRP, even if it a bottled/packaged product being served to the customer. There are some exceptions, such as for goods sold in duty-free shop or for items exempted from MRP requirements. But for standard packaged consumer goods like water bottles, the MRP is the legally mandated maximum selling price. So deficiency in service and unfair trade practice found against the OP. 

The Complainant is a resident of Dhankauda, Sambalpur and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Accordingly, it is ordered:

                                      ORDER

The O.P is directed to refund Rs. 60/- towards excess charge taken by the OP to the Complainants, Rs. 15,000/- towards harassment, mental agony, deficiency in service to the Complainants as Compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 30^th day of Sept, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.