Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/64

Amrit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Virsa Resort - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

 

                       Consumer Complaint No. : 64 of 06.05.2020

                        Date of decision                    :    29.08.2022

 

Amrit Kumar aged about 34 years, son of Pawan Kumar resident of House No.S-22, Satluj Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

                                                        ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Virsa Resorts/Restaurant, Sarsa Nangal, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its Manager/Owner  

   ...Opposite Party

 

                        Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

 

                        SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

 

Sh.Amrik Singh, Adv. for complainant

 OP ex-parte

ORDER

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that
on 18.03.2-022, the complainant along with his some guests visited the above said restaurant of the OP for having lunch. As it is a road side restaurant and table for the lunch was easily available at the restaurant and there were no instruction board or notice affixed inside the restaurant or in any the entry area regarding any table charges in case of non reservation of table. The complainant and his guests had taken their lunch in the restaurant of OPand at that time also OP did not disclose about any table charges and bill for the sum of Rs.986/- in total was given by the OP when the complainant checked the details of the bill, Rs.200/- was mentioned as table charges in the bill, complainant enquired about the same from the OP and they replied that Rs.200/- is charge for the table reservation for the complainant. When, the complainant asked the OP that he had no disclose the said charges when the complainant join in the restaurant, moreover they had not displayed any instruction or notice in the restaurant for table reservation charges, but the OP did not give any satisfactory reply and openly said that everybody has to pay the table charges who came without prereservation and OP and his staff showed derogatory behavior towards complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought the following relief against the Ops:-

1. To burden for the compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges.
3.  Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be granted, in the interest of justice.

2.                    The O.P. was duly served and were proceeded against ex-parte vide our order dated 11.07.2022.

3.                    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

4.                    Since, all the allegations of the complainant are un-rebutted, un-challenged and no one has come forward to contest the claim of the complainant. We have no alternative except to appreciate the complaint as well as the evidence of the complainant, which appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. It is on the file that on 18.03.2022, the complainant visit the restaurant of the OP for having lunch and the OP take Rs.200/- extra as table charges.  Complainant has termed the action of the O.P. illegal, malafide and an unfair trade practice. Further, the complainant has claimed that O.P. had no right to charge extra Rs.200/- for table charges. It is writ-large on the file that the complainant had paid Rs.200/- extra as table charges, which we feel is definitely an unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.  

5.                    We, have seen in a number of cases these business men extract more and more money from the poor and genuine consumers in various shapes. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a special Act, which is enacted to prevent the mal practice as well as the unfair trade practice prevailing among the business men. We definitely termed the amount charge for carry bag by the O.Ps as an unfair trade practice on their part.

6.                    The present Act envisages provisions for product liability action on account of harm caused to consumers due to a defective product or policy or by deficiency in service.

7.                    In view of the discussion made above, the present complaint is allowed exparte. Accordingly, it is ordered that the O.P will refund of Rs.200- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of incident i.e. 18.03.2022. Further, the O.P is burdened to pay a amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. OP is further directed to pay Rs.7000/- as litigation charges. The OP is also directed to comply with the said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

 ANNOUNCED                                                                                     (RANJIT SINGH)

Dated.29.08.2022                                                 PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               

                                                                  (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                      MEMBER