Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/228/2015

Barbeque Nation Restaurant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vikas Kuthiala - Opp.Party(s)

ADS Jattana & MS Gill, Adv.

13 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                            

Appeal No.	:	228 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	11.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	13.05.2016

 

1. Barbeque National Restaurant, SCO No.39, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Representative, Deepak Dhiman.
2. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Limited, being franchise of Barbeque Nation Restaurant, SCO No.39, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Representative, Deepak Dhiman.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

1. Vikas Kuthiala s/o Sh. Kuldip Kuthiala r/o H.No.105, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.

…Contesting Respondent/Complainant.

2. Chandigarh Administration, UT Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Excise & Taxation Commissioner.

....Proforma Respondent.

Argued by:

 

Sh. A. D. S. Jattana, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, respondent No.1 in person.

Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with vide order dated 14.10.2015.

 

Appeal No.	:	238 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	21.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	13.05.2016

 

Vikas Kuthiala s/o Sh. Kuldip Kudhiala R/o House No.105, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.

 ……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1. Barbeque Nation Restaurant, SCO No.39, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.
2. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd. being Franchise of Barbeque Nation Restaurant at S.C.O. 39, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager/Director.
3. Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Excise & Taxation Commissioner.

….Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY,MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, appellant in person.

Sh. A. D. S. Jattana, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Service of respondent No.3 already dispensed with vide order dated 14.10.2015.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD), PRESIDENT

 

 

(ORAL)

 

                   At the time of arguments, the Counsel for appellants/Opposite Parties, by making reference to judgment dated 14.08.2015 rendered in First Appeal No.166 of 2015 titled ‘Nando’s Sukhmani Enterprises Vs. Gurinder Singh & Anr.’, argued that a customer, who went to an eating outlet like hotel or a restaurant, would not fall within the definition of ‘consumer.

2.                We have seen the judgment referred to above and are of the opinion that the expression gathered by Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties is not correct. There are umpteen number of judgments to the contrary. The contention raised stands rejected.

3.                During arguments, the matter stands settled between the parties.

4.                In view of settlement, arrived at, respondent No.1/complainant wishes to withdraw the complaint filed before the District Forum. If that is so, the order under challenge, has become redundant and the same is set aside accordingly. The complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant before the District Forum, is deemed to have been withdrawn.

5.                Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of.

6.                Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

7.                A certified copy of the order be placed in Appeal No.238 of 2015.

8.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                         

May 13, 2016.                                        

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER 

 

 

Ad