State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Brooklyn Central vs Jagvir Singh Kang on 28 June, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 145 of 2016 Date of Institution : 10.05.2016 Date of Decision : 28.06.2016 Brooklyn Central, Halcyon Inn Hospitality Services (P) Limited, SCO No.51A, Elante Mall, Chandigarh - 160002, through its Manager. ......Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Jagvir Singh Kang son of Inderjit Singh Kang, resident of V.P.O. Kotla Shamsher, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, Punjab. ....Respondent/Complainant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.M.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Gurbir Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the respondent. PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal is directed against an order dated 07.04.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only). Vide that order, it was observed by the Forum that by charging the amount, more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) mentioned on two water bottles, the appellant/opposite party, indulged into unfair trade practice. Accordingly, consumer complaint was allowed and following relief was granted to the respondent/ complainant:-
"[a] Pay Rs.7,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;
[b] Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;
[c] To deposit Rs.15,000/- in the "Consumer Legal Aid Account" No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon'ble State Commission UT Chandigarh."
It was further directed that let compliance to the directions issued be made, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the amounts awarded was to be paid, with penal interest.
Before the Forum, it was case of the respondent/complainant that on 20.06.2015, he alongwith his wife and family friends, had gone for a dinner, in a restaurant, run by the appellant/opposite party. They enjoyed dinner and, thereafter, bill for the same was paid by his friends. When they were leaving the said restaurant, from the Counter, they purchased two water bottles, as they were to undertake a long journey to their village, situated at about 70 kms, from Chandigarh. A bill for an amount of Rs.312/- was wrongly raised by the appellant. It was specifically stated that Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of each sold water bottle was mentioned as Rs.60/- inclusive of all taxes. However, the same was sold by the appellant, for an amount of Rs.156/- each. The amount charged included VAT, Service Charges and Service Tax. An objection was raised by the respondent, however, when his grievance was not redressed, he filed a consumer complaint before the Forum.
Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant, justifying charging of Rs.312/- for two water bottles branded as 'Blue Pine Water'. It was stated that the amount was rightly charged from the respondent. The water bottles were opened and consumed by the respondent, within the premises of the restaurant. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Delhi High Court, titled as The Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India and Ors. etc. Vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2007 (Delhi) 137, it was averred that when a consumer enters a restaurant, he does so, not for a simple purchase of commodity(s) but his/her intention is also to enjoy the ambience and comfort provided in it (restaurant), as such, charging of higher rate, than the MRP mentioned on a commodity(s) was justified. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
After hearing Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, accepted the complaint, by negating the contentions raised by Counsel for the appellant, stating that excess amount was charged than the MRP fixed and mentioned on the water bottles, which were purchased by the respondent, from the Counter of the restaurant, when going to leave it, after having dinner. It was further observed that there is nothing on record to show that the water bottles were consumed within the restaurant.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Before the Delhi High Court also, in The Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India and Ors., case (supra), a similar question came up for consideration. After analyzing various judgments on the subject matter, it was concluded as under:-
"16. In the above analysis I hold that charging prices for mineral water in excess of MRP printed on the packaging, during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the SWM Act as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hotelier or restaurateur to its customers. The customer does not enter a hotel or a restaurant to make a simple purchase of these commodities. It may well be that a client would order nothing beyond a bottle of water or a beverage, but his direct purpose in doing so would clearly travel to enjoying the ambience available therein and incidentally to the ordering of any article for consumption. Can there be any justifiable reason for the Court or Commission to interdict the sale of bottled mineral water other than at a certain price, and ignore the relatively exorbitant charge for a cup of tea or coffee. The response to this rhetorical query cannot but be in the negative."
It was specifically stated that in a hotel/ restaurant, price of a commodity can be charged more than the MRP shown, qua for that commodity. In the present case also, it is not disputed that the respondent had gone to a restaurant, run by the appellant, with his family members and friends, to enjoy a dinner, for which against bill Annexure 1/1, an amount of Rs.9,168/- was paid. The said bill was issued at 23:39:30 on 20.06.2015. It was against table no.B1. The bill for purchase of two water bottles was also issued against table no.B1 at 23:47:09 on 20.06.2015. There is nothing on record to show that the water bottles were purchased at the Counter of the restaurant. In the bill Annexure-A, it is specifically mentioned that Steward Sashi had served water bottles to the respondent. To the contrary, if the water bottles were purchased at the Counter and higher bill was being claimed, it was open to the respondent, not to accept the water bottles, which he could have purchased from outside the restaurant, from any shop. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to show that the MRP of each water bottle, purchased by the respondent, was Rs.60/-. It is coming out from reading of the record that to show that the above said MRP was so mentioned, one photocopy of a lable was placed on record, of a similar bottle available outside the restaurant. Admittedly, photocopy of lable showing the said MRP was not taken of the bottles, which were purchased by the respondent. It may be possible that after taking dinner, the respondent and his friends might have felt need of water and they had purchased it, by placing an order for the same, when sitting at the said table. The very fact that a consumer enters a restaurant to purchase a commodity, it would mean that he is ready to make price more than the MRP mentioned against all commodities, as it is known that in the restaurant, prices are higher for the commodities, which are available outside at a particular MRP. The Forum has given an erroneous findings that the water bottles were purchased from the Counter, when the respondent was leaving the restaurant and those were consumed outside it. The order impugned, thus needs interference of this Commission and deserves to be set aside.
No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is set aside.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
28.06.2016 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg