Date of filing : 20-03-2010 Date of order : 15- 09-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 73/10 Dated this, the 15th day of September 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Bineesh.K.V, Kunhiveetil House, } Complainant Kandamkali.Po, Payyanur.Via (In Person) The Proprietor, Hotel Vimala Upahar, } Opposite party North Kottacherry, Kanhangad. (Adv.N.Rajmohanan, Hosdurg) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Tersely stated the case of complainant is that opposite party charged excess price for the meals and extra meals he had from opposite party hotel. According to the complainant he took a token for `25/- towards the price of the meals and when he asked for curd it was supplied along with another ticket for `5/-. The complainant then demanded for additional rice. That was also supplied with a ticket for `6/-. After having the meals the complainant enquired about the charging of extra rate for the additional rice. Then the cashier asked to look in the price board exhibited and misbehaved him in front of other customers. Therefore the complaint seeking an order against the opposite party for charging excess price and defaming him. 2. Opposite party resists the complaint. According to opposite party the averments that cashier of the opposite party insulted him and opposite party charged excessive amount from him are false. Complainant took a coupon for plate meals of white rice pricing a charge of `25/- which is supplied to him as usual. The complainant requested for additional plate of white rice for which he was given a coupon of `6/-. After completing the meals the complainant paid the amount for extra rice and did not raise any objection regarding the payments. The complainant is colluding with the complainant in CC 72/10 on the file of the Forum and these complaints are filed with a view to make unlawful gain and to harass opposite party. The complainant came to the hotel and enjoyed the meals and services provided by the opposite party after knowing perfectly well about the prices charged by opposite party. Even before extra rice was supplied to the complainant he was made aware of the fact of the extra charge is fixed for the same. The prices of each items in hotels vary from each other which will be proportionate to the services, quality and food items supplied and ambience of the hotels. The complaint is not maintainable and for filing this vexatious complaint opposite party is entitled for an exemplary cost of `5000/-. 3. Complainant examined as PW1. Ext.A1 marked. On the side of opposite party Exts B1 & B2 photographs of the price list displayed in the hotel is marked. Both sides heard. 4. Ext.A1 bill does not tally with the case of complainant. In this regard the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party Sri. Rajamohanan is that the said bill relating to the case of Sri Rajesh Kumar the complainant in the other case and the interchanging of bills itself is an indication that they are colluding to file complaints against opposite party raising baseless averments. 5. Complainant adduced evidence in tune with his complaint. According to him the opposite party charged excess price for the meals supplied to him and insulted him in front of other customers. 6. It is pertinent to note that in the other case also complainant alleged that cashier insulted him. It is hard to believe that a cashier of a commercial establishment like a hotel would insult every customer who approaching him with a complaint. Hence the allegation of insult is not believable. 7. But the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought since this is a dispute regarding pricing. It is a settled position of law that dispute of pricing will not come within the purview of Consumer Dispute. 8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Federation of Hotels & Restaurants Association of India and Others V. Union of India and Others reported in 2007 CTJ 352 (Delhi High Court) (CP) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of HP V Associated Hotels of India AIR 1972 SC 1131and Nothern India Caters India Ltd V Lt. Governor of Delhi (1979) 1 SCR 557 to hold that consumption of articles of food or drinks in Hotels and restaurants do not constitute a sale and no prohibition has been imposed by the statute to sell any commodity in excess of the price stated on its package. This view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd V Union of India reported in 2009 CTJ 1113 (Delhi High Court )(CP). 9. As per these judgments it is clear that even for a packaged commodity the Hotels can collect charges at a higher rate than fixed. If so in the case of other items no Consumer Fora can hold that the charges levied are excess since such pricing is not governed by any statute. In view of the above we hold that complainant is not entitled for any relief sought in the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Bills issued by OP. B1 & B2. photographs of the price list PW1. Bineesh Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
