Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/534/2015

Chandan Sanwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Underdoggs Sports Bar And Grill - Opp.Party(s)

Tapish Kumar Gupta

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/534/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	12/08/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	30/08/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Chandan Sanwal S/o Sh. Vishnu Dutt, R/o H.No.3, Government Homeopathic Dispensary, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.

 

………… Complainant.

Vs

 

Underdoggs Sports Bar and Grill, 308, 3^rd Floor, Elante Mall, 178-178A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh - 160002, through its Manager/ Proprietor.

 ………….Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   DR. MANJIT SINGH             PRESIDENT

          SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. Tapish Kumar Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.

                        Mrs. Madhu Dayal, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

 

PER suresh kumar sardana, MEMBER

 

 

          The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record, is that the complainant visited the Restaurant of the Opposite Party on 21.06.2015. After having finished the meals and beverages ordered, the complainant received bill to the tune of Rs.1533/-(Annexure C-1). It has been alleged that the Opposite Party in contravention of Chandigarh Administration instruction dated 31.10.2014 illegally levied service charge to the tune of Rs.128.50P, which was included in the bill. The same was protested by the complainant but to no avail.  Hence, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in First Appeal No.166 of 2015 titled as Nando’s Sukhmani Enterprises Vs. Gurinder Singh holding that services charges can be levied by the restaurant/eateries. It has been asserted that Service Charge is a nominal fee collected from the customers for the betterment of the establishment and employees thereof. The VAT and service tax were charged as per laws framed by the State Government and Central Government respectively.  Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.      The only point for determination in this case is whether the recovery of service charge to the tune of Rs.128.50P by the Opposite Party from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice or not? 

 

8.      It has been urged by the complainant that the Chandigarh Administration has already declared service charge as illegal and has directed all the restaurants and hotels of Chandigarh not to levy service charge on the customers and accordingly the service charge cannot be levied on the food served at the table.  The complainant has vehemently argued that the action of the Opposite Party is illegal, therefore, he is entitled to the refund of the sum of Rs.128.50P charged as service charge apart from compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

9.      We have carefully considered the above arguments of the complainant. It is important to note that a similar complaint filed by one Sh. Gurinder Singh S/o Sh. Balbinder Singh against Nando’s Sukhmani Enterprises was allowed by this Forum.  However, Nando’s Sukhmani Enterprises went in appeal and the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.166 of 2015 decided on 14.8.2015 after taking into consideration the memo dated 24.2.2015 and the law settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the restaurants/eateries can levy service charges from the consumers and the order passed by this Forum was set aside.  The said order of the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh has not been set aside in appeal/revision by the Hon’ble National Commission or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the same is binding on this Forum. The Govt. has not issued any such notification that levy of such service charge by restaurants/eateries is illegal.  Accordingly, on the basis of the above said judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh we hold that the restaurants/ eateries can levy service charge on the consumers and this consumer complaint for the refund of service charge and payment of compensation and litigation expenses is not maintainable before us.

 

10.      Consequently, the present consumer complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30^th August,2016                                           

Sd/-

(DR.MANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

   MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”