West Bengal



Nilanjana Chakraborty - Complainant(s)


Marco Polo Restaurant - Opp.Party(s)

Priyanka Chakraborty

01 Apr 2024


Complaint Case No. CC/326/2021
( Date of Filing : 25 Aug 2021 )
1. Nilanjana Chakraborty
7, Baroda Avenue,P.S. Patuli, Kolkata-700084.
1. Marco Polo Restaurant
24, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
 HON'BLE MR. Reyazuddin Khan MEMBER
PRESENT:Priyanka Chakraborty, Advocate for the Complainant 1
Dated : 01 Apr 2024
Final Order / Judgement







This petition of complaint has been filed by  the complainant one Nilanjana Chakraborty U/s 35 of the CP Act,  2019  against the OP  Marco-polo restaurant alleging,  inter alia that she has gone  to the OP restaurant on 26.02.2021 for  a dinner along with her relatives with a hope to spend some quality time with sumptuous food.  After arrival at the restaurant,  one of the employees of the OP asked the complainant  to take seat and handed over the menu-card.  Accordingly,  the complainant  ordered the “starter” and also ordered one packaged drinking  water along with the starter which were served to them. Thereafter, the complainant ordered the “main course” along with some soft and hard drinks for her relatives which included one branded hard drinks of kingfisher (S) 650 ml for consumption of all.

The complainant further stated after having food and beverages,  they requested the concerned  employee of OP to provide the bill for payment, the bill was given.  On receipt  of bill, the complainant was  very much surprise  to see that the packaged drinking  water bottle had  been charged with  Rs. 30/- and the hard drinks of Kingfisher (S)  650 ml  had been charged  with  Rs.  260/-  respectively  which was much higher than the maximum retail price (MRP) of the food product printed on the said bottles. They also charged 5 % GST (2.5% CGST  and  2.5 % SGST). The OP also charged 10%  of total bill amount as service charges amounting to deficiency illegally. The complainant raised the voice to  protest for over billing  of branded  products and also for illegal service charges.

The employee of the OP restaurant stated that the  service charge and the charge of branded  products  as alleged previously  intimated to one of the relatives of the complainant. The complainant then wanted to talk to the owner or manager of the OP restaurant regarding unnecessary over billing but they stated that their   owner  is also aware about the billing which is usual for “AC restaurant” and they asked to the complainant to pay  bill  immediately  and they threatened  the complainant very politely.

Finding no other alternatives,  the complainant paid the entire bill amount of Rs. 4,112/-  in cash and left  the place along with her relatives.  The photocopy of said bill in question is  annexed herewith as annexure-1. 

It is alleged by the complainant that such behavior of the  mangers and  the employees  of OP restaurant are amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the instant petition of complaint is filed by the complainant with a prayer for giving direction to the OP restaurant to refund the excess amount  paid by the complainant on  26.02.2021 and prayed for giving direction to the OP  to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant  for  spoiling of the good moment of the complainant  and her relative and also giving direction to pay  Rs.  10,000/-  for harassment, mental pain  and agony along with litigation cost  of Rs. 10,000/-.

The OP restaurant has contested the claim application  by filing a WV denying all the material allegations leveled against it.  

It is alleged by the OP in its WV that the petition of complaint is misconceived,  false and afterthought. The complainant filed the petition of complainant with  malafide intention .

It is further case of the OP that admittedly,  the complainant along with her relatives had come to the OP restaurant on 26.02.2021 for a dinner and to spend quality time with sumptuous  food.

The OP further stated that from the alleged photocopy of the bill dated 26.02.2021,  it cannot be ascertained whether the complainant was accompanied  by her relatives in the OP restaurant  and how  many they were in number. She filed the petition of complaint  after 6 months long of the incident.  The disputed amount is only of a sum of Rs. 500/-. In the bill of question,  the name of the OP restaurant  has not been mentioned and no evidence  or other documents has been  produced by the complainant  from which it can be ascertained as to which brand of bottle water or hard drinks were served to her , if at all or whether she had consumed the named items at all.  From the alleged bill, it is not proved that actually who paid the bill. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant has filed the case with malafide intention for wrongful gain. So, the petition of complaint is wanting of cause of action and liable to be dismissed.


In view of the fact and circumstances, the points of consideration are as follows:-

  1. Is the case maintainable in its present form?
  2. has the complainant any cause of action to file the case
  3. Is the complainant a consumer?
  4. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
  5. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
  6. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainants entitled to get?



Decision with reasons

All the points of considerations are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetition.

From the averment of both the parties and also considering  the position of law, it is established that the case is well maintainable in the  eye of law and this commission has got jurisdiction  both pecuniary  and  territorial  to try the case.  

From the content of the petition of complaint,  it is found that on 26.02.2021 the complainant  went for having a dinner at the OP restaurant along with her relatives  and also spent quality time with sumptuous  food. After having dinner,   they asked for bill which was submitted by the employee of the OP restaurant   from where the complainant found that  the OP demanded the charge of packaged of drinking bottle  of Rs.  30/- and for the hard drinks of kingfisher (S) 650 ml of Rs.  260/- respectively which is much higher than the maximum retail price (MRP). Beside charging  of  5 % GST,  the OP restaurant also charged the service charge of 10 % of total bill amounting of  Rs. 360.50/- illegally which is also reveled from annexure-A  i.e. photocopy of the bill in question  issued by the OP restaurant. The OP though denied the same but in their written argument and also during the course of argument, Ld. advocate of the OP admitted that since the  time of pandemic  situation,  they used to take  the service charge from their customers  which is illegal but the commission  is of same view  with the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that it is duty of the OP restaurant  to serve the food to his customers and they cannot charge any service charge to that effect . The OP restaurant  also can not charge  more price  for the packaging drinking water bottle and hard drinks as mentioned in the petition of complaint filed by the complainant.

Under such circumstances, this commission is of view that   as and when the complainant take the bill of Rs. 4,112/-  to the OP restaurant after having a dinner since then she is a consumer within the ambit of CP Act,  2019 and the OP restaurant  is a service provider. The OP charged excess amount for 10 %  service charge and packaged  drinking  water bottle of Rs. 30/- and hard drinks i.e.  of Rs. 260/-  i.e. total amount is Rs.  650.50/- in round figure is of  Rs. 651/- .

 It is also evident from the materials on record that the complainant requested the employee of the OP restaurant to talk their  manger or the owner  but they did not allow them and then the complainant  was compelled to pay the excess bill amount i.e. of Rs. 4,112/- .

Under such circumstances,   it is opined by the commission that being the service provider the conduct of the employee of the OP restaurant amounts to deficiency in service and being  the owner of them,  the OP restaurant  has vicarious liability to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant  and their conduct  caused  mental pain,   agony and harassment to the complainant   for which the OP restaurant  is liable to pay compensation  to the complainant  along with litigation cost .

In sum, being the consumer the complainant could be able to prove the case beyond   reasonable  doubt  and is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.

The points of consideration  are considered and decided in favour of  the complainant.

The complaint do get the decree as prayed for.






that the case be  and the same is decreed on contest  against the OP with cost of Rs.  1000/-.

The complainant could get the decree as prayed for

The OP restaurant  is directed  to  refund the amount of Rs.   651/-  i.e. excess billing amount to the complainant within 45 days from this date of order.

The OP is further  directed to pay compensation  of Rs.  1,000/- to  the complainant along  with litigation cost  of Rs. 500/- within 45 days from this date of order id the complainant is at liberty to execute the decree as per law.

Copy of the judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal.

[HON'BLE MRS. Sukla Sengupta]
[HON'BLE MR. Reyazuddin Khan]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.