Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1. The complainant No.1 Mrs. Rini Parvathy.  Complainant No.2 Mr. M.R. Bopanna K.A have filed this complaint against opposite party the Manager, High Park Revolving Restaurant, Mysuru praying to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.3,300/- received from the complainant in excess and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

2. The brief facts are that:-

The complainants are couples they had guests at their residence amongst whom there was a small little girl aged about 7 years and on 02.05.2018 they decided to take the guests out for dinner and just have a new mesmerizing experience to go for dinner at opposite party restaurant which attracts customers as they have revolving restaurant.The major attraction of the revolving restaurant is to take a glimpse of Mysuru City which is situated on the 3^rd floor of the building and it provides lifts.The payment has to be compulsorily be made at the ground floor and only after the full payment is made the customers are taken to the terrace floor i.e., to the revolving restaurant.The complainants were totally in four members they went to opposite party restaurant and asked the representative of opposite party at the payment counter if the revolving restaurantwas working they were informed that its working, therefore the complainant No.2 through debit card swiped card for two times, but it is unsuccessful.Therefore the complainants were informed to pay cash of Rs.1,650/-hence, they paid the said amount on 02.05.2018 and all the four members were taken to the revolving restaurantin the lift, but the revolving restaurant was not working it is switch off the complainant requested opposite party to switched on the revolving restaurant, but they did not do so and the complainants and their guests waited till 10.00 p.m. and returned with lot of disappointment,after having dinner.The behavior and the manner in which the opposite party dealt with their customers goes to show that they are practicing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.On 09.05.2018 the complainant No.2 did not receive back money paid two times i.e., Rs.1,650/- each totaling Rs.3,300/- and he got updated theBank pass book and confirmed that those two entries had been credited to the account of opposite party, then the complainant No.1 sent E-mail calling upon the opposite party to sort out the issue, but the opposite party did not sort out the issue.Hence, this complaint.

3. After registration of this complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to opposite party.  In response to notice opposite party appeared before this Commission through its counsel and has filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainants by suppressing the true facts have filed false complaint, the allegation made in the complaint do not come within the preview of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, hence the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite party running the Revolving Restaurant which facility is free of charges to its customers and the revolving facility is on the roof top and the service of revolving facility is depends upon the weather condition.  During rainy season the opposite party could not provide revolving facility and the same will be stopped on safety grounds.  The revolving facility will not be guaranteed to the customers and the food will be served in the same restaurant whether revolving facility available or not such service not for  money and the same is additional benefit to the customer at free of cost, hence question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party does not arise.  The other allegation regarding swiping of card twice is false and incorrect and there was no clear credit entry made while swiping the card and error message was shown and hence amount was paid in cash by the complainant, in case of any debit made from the account of the complainants and credit to the account of the opposite party, the same will be reversed, no amount was credited to the account of opposite party on receiving the E-mail from complainant No.1 on 28.11.2018 the opposite party cross checked and confirmed that no amount is credited to them.  The opposite party is nothing to do with the Bank transaction.  Therefore the opposite party cannot be held liable,  debiting the amount is the issue between the complainant and Banker and not the opposite party the claim of the complainant of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,300/- is baseless, there is no proof that the amount was credited to the account of opposite party.  For all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant No.1 has filed her affidavit by way of examination in chief the same was taken as PW.1 and got marked certain documents.  On the other hand, the opposite party has also filed its affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as RW.1. 

5. We have heard the arguments of complainant counsel.  The opposite party and its counsel does not turned up and not addressed arguments on behalf of opposite party.

6. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainants proves the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
2.  What order?

7.      Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.      Point No.1:-  It is not in dispute that on 02.05.2018 the complainant Nos.1 and 2 and their guests including  small little girl aged about 7 years went to opposite party to have dinner and to experience the Revolving Restaurant  situated on the third floor of the  opposite party building.  The major attraction of the Revolving Restaurant is to have a glimpse of Mysuru city.  It is the specific contention of the complainants that only after payment made at the ground floor the customers will be taken to terrace floor in the lift to the Revolving Restaurant.  Accordingly the complainant Nos.1 and 2 swiped two times for Rs.1,650/-, but it was unsuccessful as per the representation made by the opposite party at the counter.  Therefore the opposite party asked the complainants to pay cash of Rs.1,650/-.  Accordingly they paid the said amount.  In order to prove payment of Rs.1,650/- by the complainant to opposite party the complainant produced tax invoice dated 02.05.2018 issued by opposite party which is clearly shows that on 02.05.2018 the complainant paid Rs.1,650/- to the opposite party.  Therefore the payment of Rs.1,650/- to opposite party on 02.05.2018 by complainant is stands established.  The opposite party also not disputed the payment of Rs.1,650/- by the complainant to opposite party and it is further case of the complainant that after payment of Rs.1,650/- the complainant Nos.1 and 2 and their guests were taken to Revolving Restaurant   which is situated on the third floor  through lift, but the Revolving Restaurant   was not working and it was switched off.  Then they asked the opposite party to switch on the Revolving Restaurant   they did not do so and it is the contention of the opposite party that during rainy season they used to switch off the Revolving Restaurant  for the safety purpose of the customers, on 02.05.2018 little rain was there  hence opposite party contends that they had switched off the Revolving Restaurant and it is further contention of the opposite party that the payment that they will receive from the customers is only for dinner and  not for service of Revolving Restaurant  it  is  free of cost.  Therefore the opposite party contends that they had charged Rs.1,650/- swiped  for dinner only to the customers and they did not charged any money to have the service of Revolving Restaurant   and it is further contention of the opposite party that an amount of Rs.1,650/- for two times totaling to Rs.3,300/- has not been credited to their account.  The payment of money through swiping card is the transaction in between the complainant and banker which is not related to opposite party.  But it is the specific contention of the complainants that they swiped the card for two times for Rs.1,650/- each totaling to Rs.3,300/- for payment to opposite party and according to representation made by opposite party at the counter the payment through swiping card was unsuccessful.  In this regard, it is the contention of the complainant that if the payment was unsuccessful through swiping of card it will be reversed back immediately but same has not been reversed.  The complainants have produced Bank statement showing that on 02.05.2018 two payment each of Rs.1,650/- was credited to the account of the opposite party totaling to Rs.3,300/- and the said amount has been debited from the account of complainant No.2.  So from the Bank statement of complainant it is crystal clear that an amount of Rs.3,300/- has been debited from the account of complainant No.2 and the same has been credited to the account of opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party is estoped from saying that no amount has been credited to their account from the account of complainant.  As per the Bank statement, it is crystal clear that an amount of Rs.3,300/- has been credited to the account of the opposite party.  Therefore the contention taken by the opposite party that through swiping of card by complainant the opposite party did not receive Rs.3,300/- from the account of complainant cannot be believed and accepted.  The tax invoice produced by the complainant and the statement of Ban account produced by the complainant clearly depicts that the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.3,300/- + Rs.1,650/- to the opposite party on 02.05.2018 and the complainant by sending E-mail to opposite party requested the opposite party to resolve the issue, the E-mail correspondence dated 23.08.2018 is produced.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that the complainant No.1 made E-mail correspondence with opposite party and the opposite party has also asked sorry for late reply, but the opposite party did not resolve the issues.

9.      The opposite party had received Rs.3,300/- from the complainant and contends that they had not received said amount from the complainant which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party is liable to refund Rs.3,300/- received from the complainant and to pay compensation to complainant towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  committed by opposite party.  Hence, we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative. 

10.    Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.

The opposite party is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,300/- to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. within one month from this order till payment.

And the opposite party also liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practicecommitted by them and also the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation within one month from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. till payment.

    Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 30^th November, 2021)