Date of filing : 20-03-2010 Date of order : 15 -09-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 72/10 Dated this, the 15th day of September 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Rijeshkumar.K.V, Thayambath House, } Complainant Karippode, Nhekly.Po, Payyanur via, Kannur.Dist. (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 Shortly 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 complainant he had white meals for `25/-. When he demanded additional rice it was supplied for that `6/- is charged. When enquired about it the cashier insulted him in front of others stating that it is their practice. Hence the complaint seeking an order against the collection of price that is not shown in the price list exhibited in the hotel. 2. Opposite party resists the complaint and filed their version. According to opposite party the averments that the cashier insulted him is false. The averment that opposite party charged excessive amount from him is also false. Complainant had a special white meals which contains curd and payasam . For curd and payasam separate charges are fixed so also for the extra meals. Complainant had a white meals worth `25/- and curd `6/- and payasam `5/-. Apart from that he also had extra meals that is charged `6/-. Therefore `41/- is charged from the complainant. There is no charging of excess price. The complainant is colluding with the complainant in CC73/10 on the file of the Forum and these complaints are filed with a view to make unlawful gain and to harass the 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 the opposite party. Even before payasam, curd extra rice were supplied to the complainant he was made aware of the fact that the extra charges would be levied 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 the 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 to B3 series 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 is relating to the case of Sri Bineesh and the interchanging of bill 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. Therefore 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. 7. 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. 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 affirmed again by the Hon’ble High Court 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 for it. If so in the case of other items no Consumer Fora can hold that the charges levied are excess since such pricing is not controlled by any statute. In view of the above we hold that complainant is not entitled for the 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. B3 series Bills issued by OP. PW1. Rijesh kumar. 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 | | 
