STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                       First Appeal No.363 of 2021

Date of Institution:13.12.2021

                                                           Date of Decision: 28.02.2022

1.  Burger King India Pvt. Ltd., Mittal Commercia, Chimatpada, Hasanpada Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.

2.  Burger King Franchisee Located at Haveli, Karnal.

….Appellants

Versus

Vijit Guglani S/o Shri Manohar Lal Guglani, R/o House No.14, 1^st Floor, Dayal Singh Colony, Karnal, Haryana

                                                   ……Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.A S Narang, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member.

Present:-    Mr. Rohit Kapoor, counsel for the appellants.

                                      O R D E R

A.S. NARANG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                   (The matter has been heard through virtual hearing).

                   Burger King India Pvt. Ltd. & another (Appellants) have filed this appeal against the order dated 27.10.2021, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (“DCDRC”) has allowed his complaint against the Burger King Franchisee   & another (Respondents).

2.                Complainant had filed the complaint before the DCDRC with the averments that on 11.05.2019, he with his wife Mrs. Binu Guglani and his son Master Nirmit Guglani visited the restaurant of opposite parties at 8:40 P.M. They had ordered one veg. whopper burger and one juicy keema wrap. The juicy wrap was quite chewed and the same was informed to the staff of opposite parties and they accepted the fault and proposed to change the same. He found that the changed juicy keema wrap was very hot. Since, it was prepared fresh, complainant’s son wanted to have a bite of the same. Accordingly, he opened the wrap. However, he shocked to know that there was a fly in it. He reported the matter to the opposite parties, who accepted the fault. Opposite parties refunded the price of the product to him. He took the photographs of the incident and also recorded the video from his mobile of the incident. He alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and requested to cancel the license of opposite parties.

3.                Respondents in the written reply contested the complaint.

4.                Parties led their evidence before the DCDRC.

5.                After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on the record, vide impugned order dated 27.10.2021, the DCDRC, Karnal allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The DCDRC also ordered that 50% amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- will be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant and remaining 50% amount should be deposited by the opposite parties in the account of PGI, Hospital, Chandigarh for treatment of economic weaker section patients. The DCDRC also ordered that the order should be complied within 45 days, failing which the opposite parties will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of compensation.

6.                Aggrieved by the order passed by the DCDRC, Karnal,  appellants have filed this appeal.

7.                We have heard Mr.Rohit Kapoor, counsel for the appellants.

8.                Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Vijit Guglani, appellant has submitted that

though the DCDRC has awarded the compensation, yet the DCDRC has not passed any order regarding cancellation of license of the respondent is concerned. He further submitted that respondents have a turn over more than Rs.500 crores. They charged hefty amount for the products which they served to their customers. He submitted that a burger is available at Rs.10/- in the local market, however, they charged Rs.100/- for a single burger despite that they did not maintain the standard. He has further submitted that notice of the appeal be issued to the respondents and their license be cancelled.

9.                We have perused the impugned order and considered the contentions canvassed at the bar on behalf of the appellant. However, we are of the considered view that the DCDRC has properly discussed the facts of the matter. We do not feel it is a case where the DCDRC pass any order regarding cancellation of license of respondents. We feel that appellant can approach the FSSAI. With these observations, the appeal is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the DCDRC, Karnal as well as to the parties.

Pronounced in open court.

February 28^th, 2022               Suresh Chander Kaushik                A S Narang                                                     Member                                             Judicial Member

                                               Addl. Bench                                      Addl. Bench   

R.K