DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 386 of 16.9.2019

                                      Decided on: 29.7.2024

Lalit Kumar S/o Jeet Ram r/o VPO Adda Devigarh Baba Shankar Gir Colony Tehsil Dudhan Sadhan, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

The Manager, Elevate Lounge (Restaurant), SCO 5, 1^st Floor, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms.Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.K.S.Ablowal, counsel for complainant

                                      Sh.A.S.Sidhu, counsel for OP.

 ORDER

                                      GAGANDEEP GOSAL, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Lalit Kumar  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The Manager, Elevate Lounge (Restaurant) (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant visited the OP on 19.6.2019 at about 3-4 PM for drink and lunch party and has given the order for allo chana chat, chicken curry (half) chicken curry (full), missi roti, soda, bottled water, pitcher strong tap beer, 100 P 30 ML, 100P 60 ML, V69 30 ML and signt 60 ML and paid Rs.2795/- through debit card vide bill No.11108  for the same including CGST and SGST. That the complainant was shocked to know that the OPs charged Rs.30/- for the water bottle of Bailley against the actual cost of Rs.20/- and having charged Rs.10/- in excess from the complainant.
3. That again the complainant visited the restaurant of OP on 28.6.2019 at about2:00 to 3:00 P.M. for drink and lunch party and ordered for allo channa chat, karhai paneer, chicken curry(full), tandori roti, bottled water, pitcher strong tap beer, tube DRT strong, something spl.30ML something spl comp, fruit slad, French fries meg stronger tap beer 100 P 30 ML, 100P 60ML V 69 30ML and signet 60 ML and paid Rs.3047/- vide bill No.11506 including Rs.CGST and SGST for the same and paid the amount through his credit card. Again the OP  charged Rs.30/- for the water of Bailley company against the price of Rs.20/- and thereby charged Rs.10/- in excess from the complainant. Complainant sent legal notice upon the OP on 12.7. 2019 through his counsel in this regard the OP did not pay any heed. There is thus not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice adopted by the OP. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony caused to the complainant alongwith Rs.11000/-as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice OP appeared and filed written statement having contacted the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and has cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.21791 of 2017 titled as Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India Vs. Union of India whereby it has been decided that a hotel or restaurant can charge over and above the MRP of bottled water etc. as they are not just selling the goods but are also giving service to the customer; that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.
5. On merits it is alleged that the bottled water sold at the restaurant of the OP has a printed price of Rs.30/- on the bottle itself and no excess amount has been charged from the complainant. As such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the OP.After denying all other allegations of the complainant OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In evidence ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents,Ex.C1 bill dated 19.6.2019, Ex.C2 bill dated 28.6.2019,Ex.C3 copy of legal notice dated 12.6.2019, Ex.C4 postal receipt,Ex.C5 statement of account of complainant, Ex.C6 original bottle and closed the evidence.
7. The ld. counsel for OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Upinder Singh, Manager of OP alongwith documents,Ex.OP1 picture of Bailley water bottle,Ex.OP2 picture of Bailley water showing MRP and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The complainant has alleged that they  had visited the restaurant being operated by the OPs on 19.6.2019 for a lunch party. The complainant has alleged that various items were ordered like allo chana chat, chicken curry (half) chicken curry (full), missi roti, soda, bottled water, pitcher strong tap beer, 100 P 30 ML, 100P 60 ML, V69 30 ML and signet 60 ML for which a payment of  Rs.2795/- was made as per bill No.11108 which was duly paid through the debit card of the complainant. The copy of bill is Ex.C1. The complainant has alleged that for the bottled water of Bailley company provided to the complainant Rs.30/- was charged against the maximum retail price of Rs.20/- and as such an amount of Rs.10/- was over charged to the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that  the complainant again visited the OP on 28.6.2019 for lunch party and ordered for allo channa chat, karhai paneer, chicken curry(full), tandori roti, bottled water, pitcher strong tap beer, tube DRT strong, something spl.30ML something spl comp, fruit slad, French fries meg stronger tap beer 100 P 30 ML, 100P 60ML V 69 30ML and signet 60 ML for which the complainant was billed for Rs.3047/- vide bill No.11506 and the same was paid through the debit card by the complainant. Copy of the bill is Ex.C2. The complainant has again alleged that he was charged Rs.30/- for mineral water of Bailley company against the MRP of Rs.20/-. The debit card statement of the complainant is Ex.C5 as per which Rs.2795/- on 19.6.2019 and Rs.3047/- on 28.6.2019 was made by the complainant to the OP against the said bills. The complainant has sent legal notice  dated 12.7. 2019 as per Ex.C3 whereby a compensation of Rs.1lac was demanded on account of unfair trade practice being adopted by the OP.However, no action was taken by the OP.The complainant has as such prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs.11000/- on account of mental tension and agony faced by the complainant due to unfair trade practice adopted by the OP.
10. The OP in its written statement as well as affidavit Ex.OPA of Bhupinder Singh, Manager of the restaurant has pleaded that the allegations of the complainant are completely wrong and baseless .The OP has submitted that the MRP of the Bailley mineral water bottle is Rs.30/- only and the claim of the complainant that the MRP of the mineral water was Rs.20/- is not based on any facts. The OP has placed on record photographs of the mineral water bottle of the Bailley company as per which the MRP of the same is Rs.30/- itself. The OP has prayed that the complainant is trying to mislead the Forum by giving false facts and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The OP has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.21790 of 2017 titled as Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India Vs. Union of India and Ors., wherein it has been held that Standards of Weights and Measurement Act,1976 read with enactment of 1985 or the Legal Metrology Act,2019 would not apply so as to the interdict sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants at prices which are above the MRP.
11. We have gone through the rival submissions of the parties.
12. The only grievance of the complainant is that he was charged Rs.30/- for mineral bottled water of Bailley company supplied by the OPs to him on 19.6.2019 and 28.6.2019 when the complainant visited the restaurant of the OPs for lunch parties. The claim of the complainant has been rebutted by the OPs with the evidence in the shape of the photographs of the mineral water bottle,Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 as per which the MRP of the said mineral water bottle is Rs.30/- only. This evidence produced by the OP has not been rebutted by the complainant. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.21790 of 2017 titled as Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India Vs. Union of India and Ors., has held that “Standards of Weights and Measurement Act,1976 read with enactment of 1985 or the Legal Metrology Act,2019 would not apply so as to the interdict sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants at prices which are above the MRP”.
13. In view of the discussion above we are of the opinion that the rate charged to the complainant is Rs.30/- against sale price of Rs.30/-of the Bailley mineral water bottle and the complainant has not been charged over and above the MRP. As such we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.   
14.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                       Gagandeep Gosal

                                              Member                          President