State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Mavalli Tiffin Rooms, vs Siddarth P Jain on 11 January, 2022
1
APPEAL No.577/2021
Date of Filing :10.08.2021
Date of Disposal :11.01.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:11th January 2022
PRESENT
HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No 577/2021
M/s Mavalli Tiffin Rooms,
Having its office at
#14,Lalbagh Road,
Bengaluru - 560027.
Represented by its Partner,
Ms. Hemamalini Maiya
(By MrS Rajendra, Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
Mr Siddarth P Jain,
S/o Mr Praveen Kumar,
Aged 23 years,
R/at 1380/D/9,
6th Cross, Ashok Nagar,
BSK 1st Stage,
Bengluru - 560050. Respondent
:ORDER:
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 25.06.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1466/2019 by the III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Commission).
2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. None represented the Respondent/Complainant. Perused the Impugned Order & Records. It is noticed that the District Commission after 1 2 APPEAL No.577/2021 enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaint in part, directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- which is inclusive of litigation cost, to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of the Order otherwise, it shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of default till the payment.
3. Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, that the Complainant has attempted to approach an ONLINE Website "AapkiSamasya" first and not having approached the Hon'ble District Commission, reflects upon the conduct of the Complainant, to threaten & hold this Appellant to ransom, with the help of ONLINE Website and attempting to defame the business of the Appellant. Thus, the Impugned Order is not sustainable and thus seeks to allowing of the Appeal.
4. The complainant has averred in his Complaint, that on 14.06.2019 at 6.37 p.m he purchased Grape Juice by paying Rs.20/- and same was filled in 2Bottles and a Container separately by charging Rs.7/- towards Parcel Charges. It is further averred by the Complainant that he filled the Juice he purchased in his 2 water bottles and for the remaining Juice, he asked the OP's Server to put the same in a Container for that OP charged Rs.20/- and further also charged Rs.7/- for Paper carry bag which was bearing a MTR logo for as Parcel charges, which amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency in service and hence filed the instant Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act and requesting for a direction to the OP to pay Rs.1,000/- towards Aapki Samasya and other petty expenses of Rs.1,000/- and compensation of Rs.18,000/- for deficiency in service towards shock, mental and physical suffering and loss of time.
5. OP in his Version has taken a stand that, the Juice was 2 3 APPEAL No.577/2021 parcelled as per the request of the Complainant in a separate container and to ensure the same do not spill while the same is being carried/transported and he was informed that, he would be charged for the Containers which was agreed to by the Complainant. Further, he was charged for the Carry Bag bearing the MTR logo at Rs.7/-, as such, the question of Unfair Trade Practice does not arise and thus he sought Dismissal of the Complaint.
6. The observation of the District Forum in the Impugned Order that OP has not given any explanation for charging Rs.7/- under heading Parcel Charges, It is the specific case of the OP, that Paper Bag is given free of cost. If any food was kept in paper box or any container, then OP shall charge only for Container not for the Carry Bag. The District Commission has not considered the expenses paid to the Aapki Samasya by the Complainant, as it is the duty of the Complainant either to prepare the Complaint or getting prepared from others. In the circumstances of the case, the contention of the Appellant that food article or juice would not be consumed there itself and it would be taken outside, there should be Parcel Charges, but, nowhere it was stated that Parcel Charges of Rs.7/- is not charged. Thus, District Commission having verified, ordered for return of amount of Rs.7/- which is shown to be the amount charged as Parcel Charge for the food article. Therefore, we do not appreciate the grounds of Appellant and we do not find any error in the Impugned Order. However, it is felt that the Rate of Interest ordered at 8% p.a. from the date of default till the payment is on higher side hence, same is reduced to 6% to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is modified with the following terms.
Appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the Impugned Order 3 4 APPEAL No.577/2021 dated 25.06.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint No.1466/2019 by III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru is hereby modified and OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- including litigation cost to the Complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of this Order, with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of payment till realisation.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the District Commission for disbursement to the Complainant.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*s
4