Complaint filed on: 25-6-2018
Disposed on: 5-01-2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMKURU
CC.No.52/2018
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY January, 2021
PRESENT
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
Complainant: - Sri.SHIVAKUMAR,
S/o late Seenappa
A/a 40 years,
R/o Near Cycle Stand
Factory, Upparahalli,
Tumakuru City
(By Sri.T.M Dhanajay Advocate)
V/s
Opposite party:- The Manager/Proprietor,
Alankar Bar and Restaurant
Ring Road, Maralur Circle,
Tumakuru City.
(By Sri.D.Shivamahadevaiah Advocate)
ORDER
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the OP to pay the excess amount received from the complainant under bill on 12-4-2018 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and award compensation of Rs.1,00,000=00 for mental shock and agony.
2. The OP is running liquor Bar and Restaurant at Ring Road, Maralur Circle, Tumkur City. That on 12-4-2018 evening the complainant and his friends had been to the opposite party Bar and Restaurant and had placed order for one bottle Signature 180 ML whisky, two of BLE PW 180 ML, Teacher-180 ML, Whisky two of Signature-60ML, two number Block Buck wine and other items. After having drinks the OP waiter had issued bill No.00043 for total amount of Rs.2,535=00.
3. It is further case of the complainant that the OP had charged excess rate/price for consuming liquor. M.R.P rate over the bottle 180 ML signature whisky is Rs.268=00 but the complainant had charged a sum of Rs.320=00 M.R.P rate to BLEPW-180 ML is Rs.325=00 but the OP had charged Rs.390=00. M.R.P rate for teachers whisky-180 ML is Rs.460=00 but the OP had charged Rs.540=00. M.R.P rate for signature 60 ML is Rs.101=00 but the OP has charged Rs.120=00. M.R.P rate over the bottle Block Buck wine 180 ML is Rs.30=00 but the OP has charged Rs.50=00. The OP had collected excess amount of Rs.321=00 over the M.R.P rate of liquor.
4. The complainant has asked the OP for charging excess rate over the M.R.P but instead of giving proper reply the OP proprietor misbehaved and abused the complainant. The complainant has got issued legal notice dated 23-4-2018 calling upon the OP to pay the excess amount collected from him with interest but the OP gave reply denying the allegations made in the notice. Hence this complaint.
5. The OP appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that on 12-4-2018 evening the complainant and his friends had come to the OP and had drinks. The OP denied rest of the allegations that it has charged excess rate over the M.R.P rate of the each liquor and they have abused and scolded the complainant at the time of paying bill amount. It is the case of OP that they have given suitable reply to the notice of complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as such complainant is not entitled for relief claimed in the complaint.
6. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced four documents. The OP Manager filed affidavit evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted written arguments but the OP and his counsel were remained absent and the points that would arise for determination are as under;
1) Whether the complainant proves that OP
has played unfair trade practice by
charging more price than the M.R.P?
2) Is complainant entitled to the reliefs
sought for?
8. Our findings on the above points are as under;
Point No.1 :- In the negative;
Point No.2 :- In the negative for the below
REASONS
9. Point No.1 and 2:- The complainant in the written brief reiterated the averments of complaint. Further the complainant in the affidavit evidence has sworn the averments of complaint and he has produced two cash bills dated 12-4-2018 issued by OP for Rs.2,535=00. The said bills bear seal of the OP shop and signature of the manager. The bill contained the description of the product, quantity, rate and value of the product taken by the complainant. Fifteen items have shown in the bill. The complainant has produced the office copy of legal notice dated 21-4-2018, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment for having received the notice by OP. Further the complainant has produced reply notice dated 8-5-2018 sent by the OP.
10. The OP in the written version and affidavit evidence has denied the entire allegations made in the complaint. In para No.11 of the written statement the OP stated that they have running Bar and Restaurant more than twenty years and no customer has made complaint about rate of liquor and service rendered by his waiters. The respondent has provided good service to his customers and for that the respondent used to charge a little bit excess amount as against the M.R.P price, but with regard to claim excess amount from the complainant the OP has specifically denied. In view of the denial made by the OP burden is on the complainant to prove that the OP has charged and collected excess price against the M.R.P price of liquor.
11. The complainant has not produced any document to show that what is the M.R.P price of each product printed on the liquor bottle. The complainant has not produced bottles or empty bottles purchased from the OP on 12-4-2018 to know the M.R.P rate printed on the said bottle or product. The complainant would have produced said product from another liquor shop to show that the OP has charged and collected more than M.R.P price on the product. Thus the complainant has utterly failed to prove that the OP has charged and collected excess amount than that of M.R.P price of the product shown in the cash bill dated 12-4-2018. The complainant has not placed any material to prove his case except the cash bill dated 12-4-2018 which is not helpful to believe his allegations. Thus the complainant has failed to prove his case as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The complainant is dismissed without cost.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 5th day of January, 2021).
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
