Date of Filing:26/06/2021 Date of Order:04/03/2022 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated: 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Retd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M., B.A., LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.306/2021 COMPLAINANT : | | SRI T.NARASIMHA MURTHY ALIAS T.MURTHY, S/o late Thyagaraj, Aged about 61 years No.18.4th Street, Old Madras Road, Halasuru, Bangalore 560 008. Mobile No.:9980627609 (Complainant: In person) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTY: | | MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOTEL EMPIRE Registered office: #78, Central Street (of Infantry Road) Central Street, Bangalore 560 001. (SRI. AMASHUMAN M ADV. FOR OP) | |
|
ORDER
SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M. MEMBER
1. This is the complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP and praying for a direction to the OP to pay sum of Rs.1/- as compensation for causing mental shock, agony for collecting Rs.1/- extra from him and to award costs and litigation expenses and to pass such other order as this commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complainant are that: on 21/03/2021 around 8.15 p.m. the complainant went to the Hotel Empire Central street, Bangalore, and purchased certain non-vegetarian –Biriyani from OP. The complainant paid Rs.264.60 at the cash counter. As per the bill the cost of was Rs.264.60 only but the person in the cash counter gave a receipt of Rs.265/- instead of Rs.264.60/- and collected Rs.265/-, when complainant questioned him about the charging and collecting Rs.265/-, the person did not gave any answer and called Supervisor and Manager to explain it. Both persons did not give satisfaction answer. Therefore the act of this Hotel authorities is nothing but looting the customers. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed its version. In the version of the OP submitted that, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
4. Further submitted that the complainant ordered two Biriyni Rice Non-Veg each priced at Rs.120/- to have his order parcelled. Packing charges of Rs.12/- added. The op being in the business of restaurant, is liable to pay end recipient or customer. The invoice had charged 5% on the total invoice value of Rs.252/- 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST. The total tax of 5% would be Rs.12.60 the next round figure is to be preferred and if the tax amount is less than 50 paise, the preceding round figure is to be charged.
5. Further it is contended that it has rounded off the tax component of the invoice and not on in the food products purchased by the complainant. In the event of tax component amounting between 0-99 paise, the principal of the normal rounding off is applicable as provided under section 170 of Central goods and services tax Act 2017. As per the act, the tax is towards payment of a sum which exceeds 50 paise, the next round figure is to be preferred and if the amount is less than 50 paise, the preceding round figure is to be charged. Therefore the service provided by the OP does not come within the meaning of deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(7) i, ii of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly OP filed the version and contested the matter finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove the case, both complainant and OP filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
- Whether the complainant could make out of the case of deficiency and negligence of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim made in the complainant?
7. Our answers to the above points;
POINT NO 1& 2: IN THE NEGATIVE
FOR THE FOLLOWING:
REASONS
POINT NO 1:
8. On perusing the pleadings of both the parties, it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant on 21/03/2021 at about 8.15 pm visited OP Hotel and purchased non veg item and accordingly paid Rs.265/- instead of Rs.264.60 and OP did not return the balance of 40 paise alleging that there is deficiency in service on its part. On the other hand, OP has relied on the Government circulars, which has been marked as Ex R6, wherein if the amount exceeds 50 paise, the next round figure is to be collected and if the amount is less than 50 paise, the preceding round figures to be considered by neglecting the changes.
9. It is to be noted here that the Government of India has withdrawn circulation of 1 paise 2 paise 5 paise 10, 20 25, 5 0 paise and also issued circular to the effect that any amount less than 50 paise to be ignored and any amount more than 50 paise should be rounded off to after next rupee. This circular is issued in the year 2006 itself. In view of this, we are not convinced to the allegations of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP rounding of the figure to the next nearest rupee i.e. Rs.265/- Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE.
POINT NO.2:
10. In the result complainant is not entitle any of the reliefs. Further as could be seen complainant is only filed for publicity purpose which has to be deprecated. It has consumed the valuable time of this Commission, valuable time of the counsel for the OP, as well as the time of the OP. Hence they have to be compensated by the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that, if a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses if complainant is ordered to pay to the OP would meet the ends of justice. Hence we answer POINT N0.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed with cost.
- Complainant is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the OP towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses.
- Complainant is directed to submit the compliance report to this commission within 30 days from the date of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 04th day of March 2022)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | SRI T.NARASIMHA MURTHY ALIAS T.MURTHY – Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Receipt issued by Hotel Empire.
Ex P2: Order passed by this Commission in CC No.2672/2013.
Ex P3: Copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.59155/2013.
Ex P4: Order passed by the State Commission in A.No.562/2014.
Ex P5: Advertisement made by OP.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: Sri Adithya Paul Ambrose, Authorised person of OP.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
Ex R1: Copy of the authorization letter
Ex R2: Copy of the press statement
Ex R3 & R5: Copy of the Circulars (3 in Nos.)
Ex R6: Copy of the Circular by RBI.
Ex R7: Copy of the bill issued by Empire Vegetarea.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
