DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.C.CASE NO.25/2022
M/s Risha Mohanty, aged about 19 years,
Plot No.N2/178, Flat No.201, Sanghavi Apartment,
C/o Rajit Mohanty, At - IRC village, PS-Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
Proprietor, Four Petals by Varenya’s
The Pinnacle, Plot 7, Unit – 8, Near DAV school,
Nayapalli, Surya Nagar, Bhubaneswar
…. Opp. Party
For the complainant : Self
For the O.Ps : B.Pattnaik & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 27/01/2022
DATE OF ORDER : 23/12/2022
ORDER
S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER (W)
1. The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint U/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019 alleging unfair trade practice against the Opposite Party.
2. The brief contention of the complainant is that, she with her family went to Four Petals restaurant by Varenya’s on 21/01/2022 to have lunch. There they asked for normal water at least 3 to 4 times but were served with bottled mineral water. The MRP was printed Rs.20/- on the water bottle and they got two bottles of mineral water. But it was shocking to find in the final billing that each bottle of mineral water was charged with Rs.40/- which was just the double of the price printed on the bottle. On the enquiry the complainant did not get any positive response which was very disappointing. Hence, she filed this complaint against the OP claiming refund of the excess amount charged along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost.
3. Upon notice, the OP filed his written version contending therein that, he has not charged anything illegally from the complainant. Before placing order, complainant was supplied with the menu card. Price of every single item including the water bottle clearly mentioned in the menu and that was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. It is further contended that the restaurant (OP) provides numerous other services which the customer (complainant) enjoys without paying for that. So the OP can not be held liable for charging price in excess of the MRP. To justify his contention, the OP has relied upon the case of “Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India Vrs: Union of India and others”, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that “ charging prices for mineral water in excess of MRP printed on the packaging, during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provision of the SWM Act as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of those commodities by the hotelier or restaurateur to its customers. The customer does not enter a hotel or restaurant to order nothing beyond a bottle of water or a beverage but his direct purpose in doing so would clearly travel to enjoying the ambience available therein and incidentally to the ordering of any article for consumption. It is alleged that there is no justifiable reason for the court or commission to interdict the sale of bottled mineral water other than at a certain price and ignore the relatively exorbitant charge for a cup of tea or coffee. The response to this rhetorical query cannot but be in negative.
In view of the Apex court’s judgment, the OP has termed the complaint petition vexatious and prayed to drop the same with cost in the interest of justice.
4. Heard the case matter at length from both the sides and perused all the documents available on record. On due verification of the material documents placed on record, it is established that the complainant had taken lunch with her family at the restaurant of the OP. There, the complainant was charged with Rs.40/- for the bottled mineral water and that is in excess of the printed price. The MRP on the bottled mineral water was printed Rs.20, whereas OP was charged Rs.40/- for each bottle. To justify this extra charge, the OP has relied upon the decision of the Apex court. In this judgment the Apex court holds that “ charging prices for mineral water in excess of MRP printed on the packaging during the service of customers in hotel and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hotelier or restaurateur to its customers.
5. The most important question to be decided in this present complaint is whether or not a bottle of mineral water can be sold at a higher price than the MRP by the OP restaurant. It is important to note that Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is the higher price at which, product can be sold. According to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, no retail dealer or other person including manufacturer, packer, importer and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof. This aforesaid rule covers all retail dealers and other persons and does not exclude hoteliers or restaurants. It is a settled position of law that a court of law can not override a legal legislation. Also, there are judgments of Hon’ble NCDRC and SCDRC wherein, it is held that there can not be two MRPs except in accordance with the law. A service provider cannot charge an amount more than the MRP.
6. Keeping in view all the citations and going through the submission made by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that, the hotel / restaurant provides services to promote their hotel/ restaurant and to draw customers. For this, they cannot charge more than the MRP which will be sheer violation of the settled provisions of law. So, charging beyond the printed MRP in the name of providing amenities and services is not justified and amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to the complainant towards mental harassment caused to the complainant along with Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, towards cost of litigation. The order be complied with by the OP within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the same against the OP in accordance with law
The order is pronounced on this day the 23rd December, 2022 under the seal & signature of the President and Members of the Commission.
(S.TRIPATHY)
MEMBER(W)
Dictated & corrected by me
Member ( W)
I agree
President
(K.C.RATH)
Transcribed by Smt.M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno :
