Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 590
Instituted on : 10.10.2022
Decided on : 15.01.2024
Sandeep age 31 years, s/o Ishwar Singh R/o Flat No.319, Phase 2, Netaji Subhash Apartment Sector13, Dwarka, New Delhi, at present residing at H.No.425/21, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant
Vs.
- The Manager, Restaurant Brands Asia Limited(formerly known as Burger King India Limited), Commercial Site, New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi-110006.
- The Manager/Concerned Official Restaurant Brands Asia Limited(formerly known as Burger King India Limited), Registered office no.1003 to 1007, B Wing, 10th Floor, Mittal commercial, AsanPada Road, Chimatpada, Marol, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.
..........................Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Rohit Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.PardeepSheemar Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 24.08.2022, he had ordered three items i.e. BK Classic Veg, Berry Blast thick Shake and Crispy Veg from his registered mobile number, through the official mobile app of opposite parties vide order no.1006, which was amounting to Rs.270.90 and the same was paid by the complainant through his SBI Card. The order type was BKMob-Dinein, so when the complainant reached at the place of opposite party no.1 to pick up his order, then the opposite party no.1 had given the bill of Rs.239.40(hardcopy) for the above mentioned items, which was Rs.31/- less than the bill generated through their mobile app. The complainant asked about the alleged difference in the bill, then opposite party no.1 did not reply satisfactorily. Complainant requested the opposite party No.1 toreturn the excess amount charged by it but the same was denied. Complainant sent a legal notice on 02.09.2022, and in reply to the same, opposite party No.2 on 27.09.2022 had admitted that the opposite party no.1 had given the physical bill of less amount as shown in the online bill and also concocted a false story. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the extra money, to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- on account of harassment and Rs.20000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their reply in the form of affidavit on 03.01.2023 and has submitted that the allegations raised in the complaint against the OPs are false & baseless hence denied. It is further submitted that it is a trite of law that when any allegation is made with regards to the deficiency of service, the onus to prove the same with help of cogent and credible evidence lies upon the person who has made such an allegation. In the present case, complainant has failed to discharge this onus that there is any deficiency in service of the products provided by the opposite party. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.2. It is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on dated 07.02.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties hastendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A& Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.RW1 to Ex.RW3 and closed his evidence on 02.06.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through thematerial aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the order receipt Ex.C1/Ex.C2 dated 24.08.2022, a bill of Rs.270/- was issued by the opposite parties tothe complainant. As per copy of SMS Ex.C4 also, complainant had paid the amount of Rs.270/- to the Burger Kling India on 24.08.2022 through his SBI Card. But as per bill Ex.C5, opposite party issued the bill of Rs.239/- only i.e. Rs.31/- less than the bill generated through the mobile app. Complainant also served a legal notice Ex.C6 to the opposite party and in reply to the same opposite party has submitted that: “the prices on POS for Shake & Classic Veg got varied due to common connectivity issue with the internet/wifi which was the cause for discrepancy in amount between BK App & physical bill. Such technical glitches are beyond human control no matter how honest we can try to overcome the same. No extra money has been charged from the complainant. After raising of complaint, the refund would have been in process in case there was any extra money charged, but after internal analysis, it was revealed that due to internet/wifi issues the correct pricing did not reflect on the paper bill, and not that the client was charged unduly”.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that it is admitted by the opposite party that an amount of Rs.270/- was charged from the complainant and the bill of Rs.239/- only was issued to the complainant. Regarding the less billing of Rs.31/- opposite party has contended that the alleged mistake was due to common connectivity issue with the internet/wifi. But if there was any error in the bill either due to internet connectivity or for some any reason, the same should have been rectified by the opposite party at the time of issuing/handing over the same to the complainant but the same has not been done. Hence it is not proved that opposite party has not charged any extra amount from the complainant. As the bill of Rs.239/- was issued against the payment of Rs.270/-. Hence it is proved that extra amount of Rs.31/- has been charged from the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs.31/- alongwith compensation to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.31/-(Rupees thirty one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.10.2022 till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.01.2024
.....................................................
Nagender SinghKadian, President
……………………………….
TriptiPannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
