BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 06^th DAY OF APRIL 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay her compensation of Rs.1/- towards deficiency of service, and direction to OP-1 to provide pure drinking water facility in all their restaurants and also directions to OP-2 to ensure that all the hotels and restaurants situated in the BBMP area provide with pure drinking water to consumers, along with litigation cost.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant is a social activist and on 29.05.2016 she along with her relatives, Sandeep Katwa and Ashwini Katwa visited a restaurant run by OP-1 at Big Bazaar Mall, situated in Yashawanthapura.  That after having their food in the restaurant of OP-1, they asked for drinking water but the same was not provided to them.  When the complainant searched for drinking water throughout the restaurant, she could not find drinking water anywhere.  That, when complainant did not find pure drinking water in the restaurant she asked the food suppliers of OP-1 restaurant to provide her drinking water but they refused to listen her and also refused to supply drinking water stating that, if at all she wants drinking water, she has to buy mineral drinking water by paying extra money.  That the complainant insisted that it is her right as a ‘consumer’ to be served with drinking water and requested the suppliers at restaurant to provide her free drinking water.  That drinking water is a basic need and everybody cannot afford to buy bottled drinking water.  OP-1 restaurant has failed to make a provision for providing free drinking water to its customers at the said restaurant.  The said conduct of OP-1 amounts to unfair trade practice, therefore complainant approached Chief Health Officer at OP-2 on the next day i.e., 30.05.2016 and submitted a complaint together with copies of food bills.

That the complainant thereafter followed up with OP-2 and requested Dr.Vathasala, Chief Health Officer, BBMP to take necessary action against OP-1.  However, the Chief Health Officer of OP-2 did not either visit the OP-1 restaurant or made any necessary arrangement for supply of free drinking water in the said restaurant.  That the officials of BBMP have colluded with management of OP-1 restaurant and failed to make provision for free drinking water to the ‘consumers’ visiting the restaurant.

That OP-1 is deliberately not providing free drinking water to the ‘consumers’ thereby forcing them to buy packaged drinking water, by paying extra money thereby practicing unfair trade practice causing great hardship and inconvenience to the customers visiting the restaurant.  Despite having informed about the deficiency of service on the part of OP-1, OP-2 is deliberately avoiding taking any action against management of OP-1 restaurant.  Therefore complainant, having no other choice, has approached the Forum for redressal.  

3. In response to the notice issued, OP-1 appeared through their advocate but failed to file version within the time stipulated under the provisions of C.P Act, 1986.  Therefore, the version filed by OP-1, beyond time stipulated, was rejected.

4. OP-2 despite service of notice remained absent and was placed ex-parte.

5. Thereafter complainant tendered her evidence by way of affidavit.  Complainant produced certain documents and citation in support of her case.  OP-1 also submitted their written arguments.

6. The complainant has filed this complaint in person and she prosecuted the complaint in person.  Complainant appears to be a social activist, engaged herself in various social activities.  The complainant claims that on 29.05.2016 she along with her relatives visited OP-1 Restaurant for having some food and while having food she asked for drinking water, since drinking water was not provided to their table by the suppliers. Then she was searched for drinking water in the Restaurant premises but she did not find any, then she realized that no provision has been made by OP-1 for supplying free drinking water to the customers.  Therefore, complainant has asked the suppliers to provide them drinking water, at which time they have refused to provide her free drinking water and further stated that if at all she wants drinking water, she has to buy a bottle of packaged drinking water available at the counter, by paying extra money.

7. The complainant has produced the copy of bill she has paid for having purchased food items at OP-1 Restaurant on 29^th May 2016.  The said bill discloses that, she has consumed food item worth Rs.184/- inclusive of taxes.  OP-1 in their written argument claims that they run the said Restaurant based on a self service module and adopt the practice of serving oneself while purchasing the items or asking for other add-ons such as water, ketchup, tissues etc.  It is further contended that OP-1 is a chain of self serving restaurants wherein, each customer ought to approach the counter at each outlet and place their order for the food sought by them and upon payment for food ordered, the customers will be delivered the food items in the next counter along with other essentials such as tissues, ketchup, water etc.  It is contended by OP-1 that they provide water to ‘consumers’ on demand from the food delivery counter just like other essential such as tissues and other add-ons.  OP-1 claims that, the day on which, complainant visited the restaurant, drinking water was very much available and she was never refused water as alleged by her.

8. Complainant in her affidavit evidence reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and asserted that despite her repeated demands made, she was not provided drinking water by the staff of the OP-1 restaurant.  She further insisted that, the staff of the restaurant insisted her to buy packaged drinking water by paying extra money, if at all she needs water to drink.  We don’t find any reasons for the complainant to make false allegations against OP-1.  It is pertinent to note here that, though she alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of OP-1, she has sought for compensation of Rs.1/- only.  Therefore, one cannot allege that, the complainant has come up with a false complaint with an oblique motive to extract money from OP-1.  In fact during the course of arguments, the entire members at the bar rose to support the claim of the complainant and submit that apart from KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) other Multinational Restaurants such as Mc.Donald, Barista Coffee, Starbucks, Café Coffee Day does not provide free clean drinking water to the ‘consumers’ and insist the consumers to buy packaged drinking water, by paying extra money.

9. Though OP-1 claims that, they provide free drinking water to the ‘consumers’ in all their restaurants but did not produce any credible evidence to believe that they provide free drinking water to the customer/consumers who all visit their restaurant.  If at all the complainant had been provided with clean drinking water, there was no reason for her to approach this Forum for redressal.  It is also pertinent to note that, the complainant prior to approaching this Forum lodged written complaint dated 30.05.2016 to the Chief Health Officer, BBMP (Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike) Bangalore.  Copy of the said complaint is produced along with complaint.  In the said complaint, she has brought to the notice of the Chief Health Officer about the deficiency of service on the part of OP-1 and has requested him/her to take necessary action against OP-1 Restaurant for having failed to provide free drinking water to the ‘consumers’ visiting the restaurant, though it is their bounden duty to provide free drinking water.  However it appears that, OP-2 has not either, initiated any action against OP-1 or atleast issued necessary directions to OP-1 to provide free clean drinking water to the ‘consumers’ visiting the restaurant.  In fact OP-2 is duty bound to see that all the restaurants and eateries provide free drinking water to the ‘consumers’.  The conduct of OP-2 in not responding to the written complaint by OP-1 and in not ensuring free clean drinking water to the consumers visiting restaurants like that of OP-1 and others shows, their lack of concerns to the public cause and apathy towards suffering of the public at large.

10. The complainant brought to our notice a notification dated November 30, 2015 pertaining to Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.  It appears that the said notification was necessitated in view of the fact that certain eateries were providing tap water for drinking to the consumers thereby compelling them to buy packaged drinking water.  The notification reads as under:

November 30, 2015

The aim is to put a check on eateries that provide only tap water for drinking, thereby compelling customers to buy bottled water.

To prevent spread of waterborne diseases, Mumbai’s municipal corporation the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation) has made it compulsory for all restaurants and eating houses in Mumbai to have a water purifier.  It will also be a special clause in the license conditions to be given for eateries.

The measure is expected to put a check on eateries that provide only tap water for drinking, thereby compelling customers to buy bottled water.

A Supreme Court ruling makes it mandatory for restaurants and eateries to provide safe drinking water to people visiting these places.  However, according to civic officials, water served in several eateries is not potable due to which there is possibility of contracting waterborne diseases.  To prevent this, the civic body has made it compulsory for restaurants and eating houses to install water purifiers in their premises.  The BMC has added this special clause in the license conditions to be given for eateries.

According to civic officials, BMC’s public health department under municipal act 394 issues licenses to eateries, going by which, they have to abide by certain health and hygiene conditions.  The special clause of installing of water purifiers has now been included in these conditions.

11. The above notification discloses that, the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation) has initiated steps to make it compulsory for all restaurants and eating houses to install water purifiers in their premises.  In this regard the BMC has incorporated a special clause for installing of water purifiers, as one of the conditions of license.

12. Though OP-2 did not appear and provide us any information as to the terms and conditions of the license issued to the restaurants and eating houses in the limits of BBMP but we are certain that there bound to be a clause like the one included by BMC to provide free clean drinking water to the customers.

13. The complainant who has produced a copy of judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.3972/2014.  Several members at bar brought to our notice that, no clean drinking water is provided in Multiplexes and eateries inside at Bangalore thereby forcing them to buy packaged drinking water, at exorbitant price.

14. Admittedly cinema house in the multiplex at Bangalore do not allow anybody to carry drinking water bottles and eateries inside the cinema house for security reasons.  The customer/consumer who visits such cinema houses are forced to buy packaged drinking water from restaurants inside the multiplex by paying exorbitant price.  No doubt it is the duty of OP-2 to see that clean free drinking water is provided to ‘consumers’ visiting multiplex, at no extra cost.  However, it appears to us that, OP-2 is not taking care to see that the restaurant in the multiplex as well as the multiplex provide clean free drinking water to the customers, thereby putting them to great hardship and inconvenience and unnecessary expenses for buying packaged drinking water.

15. Now coming to the case on hand, absolutely there is no material including the CCTV footage to substantiate that OP-1 provides free drinking water in the restaurant.  From the sworn testimony of the complainant coupled with various materials placed on record, we are convinced that OP-1 restaurant failed to provide free clean drinking water to complainant and her relatives when demanded on 29.05.2016, during their visit to their restaurant.  This conduct OP amounts to deficiency of service.  Therefore, complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1/- as sought in the complaint together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

         16. It appears to us that the complainant has approached this Forum not only for redressal of her personal grievance but also for the benefit of public at large.  Looking to the grievance now brought to our notice, we feel it appropriate to direct the OP-2 to strictly enforce the license conditions and ensure that the directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Consumer Court in Revision Petition No.3972/2014 are complied by all the Multiplexes, Restaurants and Eateries in the limits of BBMP.

17. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

18. For the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:  

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed.  OP-1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1/- (One Rupee Only) to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Further we direct OP-2 to ensure that all the Multiplexes, Restaurant and Eating houses in the limits of BBMP provide free clean drinking water to all the consumers/customers throughout the year.  Office to communicate this order to OP-2 together with copy of the order passed in Revision Petition No.3972/2014.

OP-2 shall report the compliance to the Forum within 60 days from the date of communication of the order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 06^th day of April 2017)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 09.01.2017.

           Sudha Katwa.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s - Nil

Document produced by the Opposite party - 1:

MEMBER                            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

Vln*