Complainant Harpreet Saini has filed this instant complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party and prayed that direction may kindly be issued to opposite party to pay him Rs.30,000/- for causing in-convenience, mental torture, unfair trade practice and deficiency in services including Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is law abiding citizen and belongs to respectable and educated family. It was pleaded that on 08.08.2021 complainant visited to the Burger Hut of the opposite party alongwith his four other family members and placed an order with the opposite party, containing (7) seven items in which includes Farmhouse Pizza, Alook Tikki, Masala Fries, Chocolate and Coke 2 Ltrs. Vide bill/invoice No.9285 dated 08.08.2021 and opposite party issued bill amounting to Rs.720/- to the complainant in the manner mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint. It was further pleaded that complainant was surprised on observing the bill receipt in which MRP of the 2 Litter Coke Bottle was Rs.90.00 and one 300 ML Coke Bottle was given to him free of cost which was clearly engraved on the packaging of 2 Ltr. Coke bottle and from this fact it was clear that Rs.10/- extra from the MRP of 2 Ltr. Coke Bottle was charged by the opposite party from the complainant and an objection was raised by the complainant to this effect that opposite party has no right to charge extra on MRP as per Maximum Retail Price Rules and as per Metrology Packaged Commodities Rules 2011 but no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite party and also not justified the cost of bill rather they misbehaved with the complainant very rudely. It was also pleaded that complainant made request to the opposite party that the extra amount charged by them was not feasible in the eyes of law and they infringed the right of the consumer in this way and indulged into a unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It was next pleaded that a legal to this effect was also issued to the opposite party on 13.09.2021 but they did not give any reply of the same and complainant was suffered mental and physical harassment from the hands of the opposite party, hence this complaint.

3.       Notice was issued to the opposite party but they did not appear and prefer to proceed exparte vide order dated 18.05.2022.        

4.       In order to prove the case, counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.

5.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

6.       Written arguments also not filed by the complainant.

7.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

8.       From the over all circumstances as enumerated in respective pleadings of the party, it reveals that on 08.08.2021 complainant visited to the Burger Hut of the opposite party alongwith his four other family members and placed an order with the opposite party, containing (7) seven items in which includes Farmhouse Pizza, Alook Tikki, Masala Fries, Chocolate and Coke 2 Ltrs. Vide which the opposite party issued bill/invoice No.9285 dated 08.08.2021 amounting to Rs.720/- to the complainant. Complainant noticed that MRP of the 2 Litter Coke Bottle was Rs.90.00 and one 300 ML Coke Bottle was given to him free of cost and but the opposite party charged Rs 100/- and from this fact it was clear that Rs.10/- extra has been charged for the MRP of 2 Ltr. from the complainant as per Ex.C-1 and an objection was raised by the complainant to this effect that opposite party has no right to charge extra on MRP as per Maximum Retail Price Rules. Opposite party had charged Rs.100/- which had printed MRP Rs.90/- on Ex.C-2. Complainant brought this to the notice of opposite party but the response was allegedly rude. Thereafter complainant filed the present complaint. He submitted Bill i.e. Ex C-1, issued by opposite party.

9.       The opposite party did not bother to appear in this commission and prefer to proceed exparte vide order dated 18.05.2022 and did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by him as aforesaid as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either opposite party admit the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. In this way, the evidence led by the complaint goes unrebutted and unassailed.         

10.     The restaurants cannot charge more than MRP as same will be sheer violation of the settled provision of law. There are judgments on this subject by SCDRC & DCDRC such as order dated 23.12.2022 of DCDRC Khurda (Bhubneshwar) regarding CC.25/2022 in the case of Risha Mohante Versus Proprietor Four Petal's vide which charging of more than MRP on water bottle has been considered as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

11.     After hearing the arguments and relying upon the above referred judgment we conclude that the opposite party did not serve the drink in a glass but complainant got the bottle of coke as a whole. Therefore this action of the opposite party cannot be treated as ordinary incident. It should be dealt with seriously as unfair trade practice and deserve action in the interest of rights of the society.

12.     Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed with the direction to the opposite party to pay fine of Rs.2500/- , which is to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay the amount along with interest @ 6% P.A. from filling of the present complaint till its realization.

13.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

14.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                      

                               (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)

                                                                         President   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

March 10, 2023                                             Member

*YP*