Date of filing: 18.06.2019
Date of disposal : 13.02.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L., ....MEMBER-II
RBT/CC. No.91/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
(CC.No.84/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
Dr.R.Ramkumar,
S/o.Late Dr.N.Ramadas,
New No.60, Sami Pandaram Street,
Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Manager,
Copper Chimney (VR Mall),
Deluxe Caterers Private Limited,
2nd floor, Unit No.S-69, VR Mall,
Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Anna Nagar,
Chennai 600 040.
2.The Director,
Copper Chimney, Deluxe Caterers Private Limited,
Nilam Mansionlamington Road,
Mumbai – 400 004, Maharashtra. .......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.M.Madhu Prakash, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Mr.Deepak Vaid, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.84/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.91/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 06.02.2023 in the presence of Mr.M.Madhu Prakash counsel for the complainant and Mr.Deepak Vaid counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in selling the packaged bottled water above the Maximum Retail price along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the unfair trade practice of the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the act of the opposite parties in selling the packaged bottled water above the MRP, the present complaint was filed. The complainant had spent his weekend with his family at VR Mall located at Anna Nagar and the complainant purchased food items from the 1st opposite party viz Kids Butter Chicken meals, Aloo Kheema Briyani, Sweet Lassi, Patiala Kulfi and Bottled Water for which the 1st opposite party charged around Rs.1,822/-. After paying the bill the complainant found Bottled water was billed above the Maximum Retail Price. Hence the complainant questioned the 1st opposite party that the price in the bottled water itself was mentioned as Rs.100/- but the 1st opposite party had charged around Rs.125/-. It was stated that the product rate had been fixed considering all the facts and price was fixed which would be the maximum price for which it should be sold. Selling the product above the maximum price fixed was totally against law. The complainant questioned the 1st opposite party to refund the excess money charged above the maximum retail price, but the 1st opposite party refused to do so. The 1st opposite party had sold the product above the maximum retail price only based on the instructions of the 2nd opposite party. It was submitted under the Consumer Goods Act 2006, the consumer could not charge over the maximum price printed on the goods by the manufacturer. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice to both the opposite parties on 30.05.2019 to reduce the sales price of products above the MRP and reply the steps taken by the 2nd opposite party on the 1st opposite party. But the opposite parties even after receipt of notice did not take any step to resolve and to dilute the grievance of the complainant. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the unfair trade practice of the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-
The opposite parties filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the The 1st opposite party was an employee of Deluxe Caterers Private Limited and the 2nd opposite party was a Director of Deluxe Caterers Private Limited who had no independent role or responsibility to the issue raised by the complainant before this commission. The 1st opposite party Deluxe Caterers Private Limited was a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in 1956. It was involved in the business of managing and operating restaurants, bars and canteens throughout India. one of its signature Indian restaurant is known as “Copper Chimney”, which was considered a pioneer in the Indian restaurant space, with a live open kitchen, one of the first in India, alone with superlative tasty Indian food served in a high-end ambience. Copper Chimney restaurants spread across India with more than 12 operating outlets. The complainant had visited the opposite party’s restaurant Copper Chimney at VR Mall, Chennai on 28.04.2019. Upon entering the restaurant premises, the complainant was presented with the menu card with details of all the food items and charges mentioned in them. There was ample and sufficient time to go through the menu card. After perusing the menu card, the complainant placed order for service and was charged for the service rendered as per the charges mentioned in the menu card. No extra charge was levied on the complainant that was mentioned in the menu card. Further the complainant was served bottled water along with several other items which he consumed in the opposite party restaurant Copper Chimney, all of which collectively amounted to a total bill of INR.1,822/- inclusive of the applicable taxes. Complainant after duly perusing the menu card and being well aware of the prices of all items, including water bottle, made his voluntary conscious decision to place the order for the food items and water bottle and consumed the same. The opposite party states that the bottled water has to be always specifically asked by the customer and was always well informed about the charges prior to placement of its order or consumption. Normal water or hot water used by the opposite party in its restaurants for drinking purposes was offered free of charge in plenty to its customers while dining whereas bottled water was charged. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A4. On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 on their side.
Points for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in selling the packaged bottled water above the MRP as alleged by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Bill issued by the 1st opposite party dated 28.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;
Bank advice slip dated 28.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties along with postal receipt and tracking report dated 30.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
Photo to show cost of the water was marked as Ex.A4;
On the side of opposite parties the following documents were filed to proof of their defence;
Board Resolution Extract dated 30.07.2022 was marked as ExB1;
Membership certificate of Deluxe Caterers Private Limited with the Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India with bill dated 18.04.2019 was marked as Ex.B2;
Reply notice sent by Deluxe caterers private Limited to complainant dated 13.06.2019 was marked as Ex.B3;
Food & Beverage Menu Card of opposite party’s Copper Chimney Restaurant at VR Mall, Chennai was marked as Ex.B4;
Despite offering several opportunities the complainant did not come forward to file any written arguments before this commission. Hence written arguments stage on the side complainant was closed and orders pronounced.
Heard both counsels and perused the available pleadings and materials produced before this commission.
The main crux of the complainant’s case was that when he had food at the 1st opposite party hotel he was charged Rs.125/- for the bottled water though the MRP mentioned only as Rs.100/-. Thus stating that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice by charging over and above the MRP the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed.
Refuting the complaint allegations the opposite party submitted that the complainant had failed to submit that it is a Restaurant and that Restaurants are selling items as per the menu. Further the complainant has come with his family, red out the menu card and then ordered food and water. He did not accept free water and also did not come only to purchase water. In the menu card the price of water bottle was clearly mentioned. Further the Consumer Goods Act 2006 (Mandatory Printing of Cost of Production and Maximum Retail Price) was not in existence also did not apply for Restaurants. He also relied upon the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.21790/2017 &21791/2017 dated 12.12.2017 in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India Vs Union of India and Others and Review Petitions No.111-112/1978 dated 21.12.1979 in M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Limited Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi and in W.P.(C) No.11689-90/2006 dated 15.04.2009 in Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited Vs Union of India reported in ILR (2009) V Delhi 169 and argued that the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency in service.
On analysis with the available pleadings and evidences, we find force in the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the opposite parties. The factum of complainant had dinner at the Restaurant of the opposite parties with his family was not disputed. Further even as per the version of the complainant, he had ordered food on seeing the Menu Card. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that the rate of the bottled water was mentioned in the menu card which should have been noticed by the complainant and hence now he cannot dispute the same as he ordered the food and water only after seeing the Menu Card. Above all by the ruling of the Apex Court which is an existing precedent as on today in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India vs Union of India, the Apex Court had permitted hotels and restaurants to charge prices higher than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on bottled water sold to its customers as part of food and drinks service in its words as follows;
“On a reading of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder, it is clear that the position qua “sale” remains exactly the same as that contained in the 1976 Act, which now stands repealed. This being the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was absolutely correct in his conclusion that despite the constitutional amendment having been passed, the definition of “sale” contained both in the 1976 Act and now in the 2009 Act would go to show that composite indivisible agreements for supply of services and food and drinks would not come within the purview of either enactment, and that this is for the very good reason that the object for both these enactments is something quite different - the object being, as has been pointed out above, to standardize weights and measures for defined goods so that quantities that are supplied are thus mentioned on the package and that MRPs are mentioned so that there is one uniform price at which such goods are sold was completely in favour of the opposite parties”.
The said decision squarely applies to the present case and we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in selling the bottled water above the MRP. Thus this point is answered accordingly holding that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he is not entitled any relief from the opposite parties.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No order as to Cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 13th day of February 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 28.04.2019 Bill issued by the 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A2 28.04.2019 Bank advice slip. Xerox
Ex.A3 30.05.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A4 ................. Photo to show cost of the water. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 30.07.2022 Board Resolution Extract. Xerox
Ex.B2 10.06.2019 Membership certificate of Deluxe Caterers Private Limited with the Federation of Hotel &Restaurant Associations of India with bill. Xerox
Ex.B3 13.06.2019 Reply notice sent by Deluxe caterers private Limited to complainant. Xerox
Ex.B4 2019 Food & Beverage Menu Card of opposite party’s Copper Chimney Restaurant at VR Mall, Chennai. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
