IN THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR

C.C. No.96 of 2016

Amitabh Bose,

S/o- Sri. Amal Kanti Bose

Aged about 46 Years,

At/PO/Dist- Nuapada,

Odisha                                                                           ……………… Petitioner

-VERSUS –

            The Manager,

            The BAGICHA (Restaurant),

            Opposite Pvt. Bus Stand,

            Ainthapali, Sambalpur

            PO- Ainthapali

            Dist-Sambalpur                                                          ………….. Opp. Party

For Complainant      :           Adv. N. Tripathy, A.Purohit, and R.R.Pujari

For O.P.                   : Adv.S.K. Tripathy, R.M. Beauria

PRESENT:-  SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT

SMT. S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER

SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER

Date of Order: 22/25.01.2018

SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT

1. That, The Petitioner resides in Nuapada and the O.P. Carries on his business unit i.e. Bagicha Restaurant in the Ainthapali, Sambalpur under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
2. That, on dated 29^th Nov, 2016, along with his family and relatives (altogether 11 members) went to the Bagicha, Restaurant at Ainthapali, Sambalpur to have a get together Party in shape of dinner. Out of which three members were women (house wives) and were restricted to vegetarian for that day as Tuesday Fasting being observed Maa Durga’s day as per Hindu custom and belief.
3. That, the cause of action arose on the same day when the three lady members tested non-veg food from their vegetarian dishes in deception out of the negligence of O.P. i.e.1 Prawn was found from the plate of Paneer Chilly and 2chicken piece were found from the bowl of veg Hot & Sour soup!!! Without making further delay the O.P. was apprised of his negligence. Neither the O.P. replaced the said food of veg. category nor deducted the price of the said items in question!!
4. That, in the above circumstances the fasting and customary belief on God was negligently broken by the O.P. of three lady members of Petitioner’s family.
5. He was made to pay for the food item which was not consumed.

On the basis of the above the complainant prayed that;-

To order refund of the said amount of Rs. 386/- for the food, Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony, Rs 30,000/- towards the moral losses and loss of faith on God of three lady members of Petitioner’s family and oblige.

Documents filed by Complainant:-

Sl. No.              Description of documents                               Date if anyRemarks

1.              True copy of case Memo                                   29/11/2016

Vide TIN no. 21941/08573

After due receipt of the notice the O.P. filed his written version as follows:-

6. That the petitioner para 1 regarding the petitioner’s residence not known to this opp. and hence denied. The O.P. admitted the visit and serving of food.
7. That regarding the dishes served by the waiter to the petitioner and his family and relative is totally denied by this opp., as per the petitioner and his family and relatives has ordered the veg. and non-veg. dishes/items as per their wish and sitting in one dining table and eating together. They have not told to the waiter regarding the fasting observed by some members to serve the veg. and non-veg. dishes separately or in separate tables.
8. That more over the kitchen of the said restaurant has wide space about 600sft and according to Hindu custom and belief and keeping in mind and respect to the customer’s attitudes/ choices the kitchen has separate kitchen utensils, stoves and separate veg. and non-veg. cooks are engaged for cooking the items separately.
9. The O.P. denies any complaint mode by the complainant. According to him there was no occasion to replace the food as there was no complaint from the side of complainant.
10. There was no deficiency in service nor any religious faith of any member of the dinner party was broken, it may be submitted here at the cost of the petitioner that veg. and non-veg. items are cooked separately by different cook. There is no possibility of mix-up in the kitchen or in servicing.
11. According to the O.P. the petitioner has been filed solely to harass the O.P. which is clear from the amounts claim or mental agony and loss religious faith.
12. Further this being a petition solely for harassment of the O.P. and illegal enrichment the O.P. humbly carves the court action against the petitioner by imposing penalty u/s. 27 of CD act.

On the basis of the above O.P. prays for dismissed of the complaint. None filed their written argument

13. Perused the petition and heard the argument advanced by the learned counsels for their respective side. The Advocate’s from the both side addressed the forum at length and they stuck to their own positions.
14. The Advocate for complainant submitted that the O.P’s waiter was categorically noticed that 3 women member of the party are on some rituals and hence the non-veg items should not have been mixed. Complainant was sorry that he has not taken any photograph as evidence.
15. When they found non-veg item in the food, they had to skip the item. The complainant to the management fell in deaf ears and the food was changed. The complainant had to pay for the food they have not consumed.
16. He further strongly submitted that the O.P. has committed deficiency in service and his clients be adequately compensated.
17. The O.P. Advocate brought up the fact that the eleven members party sat as a group without any boundary or discrimination between fasting ladies and other members.
18. Neither the waiter was appraised of the fact. He further argued that there was separate cooking place for non-veg and veg food in the hotel of the O.P. And hence there was no chance of mixing of veg and non veg item as claimed by the complainant.
19. He further submitted that the complainant has filed this case to harass and blackmail the O.P. and to get some money out of it.
20. On the basis of the above he submitted that the case be dropped and be adequately compensated for the false case foisted on his client.
21. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances narrated by both the parties, we come to a conclusion that the complainant has contributed to the negligence by inadvertently sitting in a group and not notifying the waiters regarding the abstinence from non veg food item by the three members of the family.
22. But it is also a fact that the management was notified regarding the non-veg fast by the ladies. Hence the O.P. is guilty of disservice. Weighing the contributory negligence and negligence committed by the O.P. we are of firm opinion that O.P.’s negligence outweighed the contributory factor.
23.  Hence we order that as the O.P. negligently broke the non-veg fast of the ladies, by serving non-veg item in their dishes, the O.P. is to be penalized.  O.P. is to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- along with Rs. 386/- to the complainant to mitigate his sufferings.

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                    Sd/-                                                                                                                              SHRI A.P.MUND

         SMT S.TRIPATHY. Member I agree.                                                                                        PRESIDENT.                                                                                           .

                         Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-

         SHRI K.D.DASH.  Member    I agree.                                                               Dictated and corrected by me.                     

                                                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT