By G. Yadunadhan, President:

 

            Complainant’s case is that on 13-9-08 he had visited the opposite party’s restaurant for having a ice cream. He was served an ice cream by the waiter as ordered by him. When he was about to have ice cream, he could notice used chewing gum pasted on the outer portion of the goblet. Immediately the complainant pointed out the same to the supplier, supplier was heedless to the order of the complainant. Apart from that he expressed their unwillingness to supply another ice cream and further force to the complainant to pay the bill of the ice cream what he has not consumed. After making complaint opposite party has not acted promptly and declined to give the direction to the supplier to substitute the ice cream. Being a Manager the opposite party ought to have interfered in order to redress the grievance of the complainant. The act and omission of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant seeking relief against opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

 

            Opposite party after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version denied all the allegations made by the complainant. There was one incident which transpired a few months back, when one guest came to the restaurant attached to the restaurant sat on table No.43 in Maikhana River side Bar cum Restaurant attached to the resort and ordered for a beer. After a while he sent out and then came back with a lady and at that time he was seen chewing gum something. He then ordered for an ice cream for a lady who sat on the other side of the same table, facing him. The ice cream was served according to the order placed and after she finished having ice cream, the customer requested for the bill and mean while, the lady left the restaurant. When the steward was serving the bill he noticed the ice cream bowl on the opposite side was placed next to the above said guest. When the bill was presented to him, he showed chewing gum struck on the reverse side of the ice cream bowl at the very bottom corner. It was noticed that the chewing gum was set and appeared as though it was freshly taken out. The guest then started argument with the steward and captain and tried to avoid paying bill. Since there is no possibility of stewards or other staff using chewing gum while on duty. The guest was asked to pay the bill amount and he paid the same and left. There was no communication from him either verbal or written in their regard. It is submitted that the Kadavu Resort is a reputed five star restaurant and this reputation is acquired as a result of sincere service of their honest and experienced staff. So far there is no complaint about the quality of food and service rendered by the resort. Under the circumstances the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

 

            The points for consideration are (1) whether any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? (2) If so what is the relief and costs?

 

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 series were marked. Opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence. Ext.A1 admitted by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the Lawyer notice issued by the complainant. Ext.A3 is the reply notice. While perusal of Ext.A4 series it is shows that the used chewing gum pasted outer side of the goblet how it appears opposite party has no explanation, supplier also silent about the incident. Opposite party had already admitted in their reply notice and version that the Kadavu Resort is a Five Star hotel. Being a five star hotel opposite party should have most care and caution to serve the item to the customer. They should not have entertained an y complaint with regard to serving of the food or any item. With regard to the pasting of the chewing gum opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that except their version and reply notice who is the actual person behind the act. Any way it is a clear deficiency on the part of opposite party. Under these circumstances being a five star hotel it is the duty of the opposite party to serve the items properly without any complaint. It was a failure on the part of opposite party. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Under the circumstances opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs.500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 24th day of May 2010.

 

 

            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER           SD/- MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Photocopy of bill dt. 13-9-08.

A2. Copy of Regd. Lawyer notice dt. 6-11-2008.

A3. Reply notice dt. 22-11-2008.

A4 series. Photos.

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite paprty.

            Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Ganeshkumar (Complainant)

 

Witness examined for the opposite party.

            None

 

                                                                                    Sd/- President

 

                        // True copy //

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.