Versus
M/s. Penthouse, 19-K, Kipps Complex, 5th Floor, Opp. PAU Gate No.1, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized representative. 141003. …..Opposite party
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Amit Sood, Advocate.
For OP : Exparte.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the opposite party is running a restaurant under the name and style of M/s. Pent House having brew bar, hot kitchen and sky garden facilities. The complainant along with family members/friends visited opposite party restaurant on 14.05.2022 and were served at table No.12. The complainant placed orders and final bill of Rs.13,999/- was raised by the opposite party including VAT of Rs.243.10P, CGST of Rs.88.21P and SGST of Rs.88.21 along with service charges of Rs.1182,76/-. The complainant further stated that he raised issue of service charges of Rs.1182.76 but the opposite party asked the complainant to pay the total bill amount which the complainant finding no other way, paid the entire amount of Rs.13,999/-. The complainant further stated that as per Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Pubic Distribution Guidelines it is not mandatory for consumers to pay service charge at restaurants and that it is the solely the discretion of consumers if they want to pay the amount or not. Further as per Union Government approved guidelines in 2017 that service charge on hotel and restaurant bills are voluntary and not mandatory. The complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 20.05.2022 upon the opposite party to refund the service charge of Rs.1182.76 but failed receive positive response. The complainant has suffered harassment and tension at the hands of the opposite party due to gross negligence on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to opposite party to refund the service charge of Rs.1182.76 along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party through registered post on 18.07.2022 but none turned up for the opposite party and as such, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.09.2022.
3. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated his averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record copy of bill dated 14.05.2022 as Ex. C1, legal notice as Ex. C2 and postal receipt as Ex. C3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and documents annexed by the complainant.
5. Perusal of invoice Ex. C1 shows that there is a separate space for providing the particulars for the food items consumed and at the bottom of the bill where the columns are meant for providing details of taxes, the word “S.C.” has been mentioned showing the payable amount of Rs.1182.76 against the said entry. It has not been prominently mentioned on the bill itself or displayed elsewhere in the restaurant that “S.C.” alphabet implies for service charges. Section 2(9) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act enumerates the consumer rights and ‘right to be informed’ about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices is one of such right which is available to the consumer/complainant. In the present case, the said right of the complainant has clearly been breached as the word “S.C.” is practically non-decipherable to unsuspecting consumer/complainant.
6. Further from the perusal of the affidavit of the complainant Ex. CA, it is evident that the opposite party has forcibly imposed service charges under the head of S.C. in the invoice Ex. C1 and the complainant was made to pay the same before leaving the restaurant of the opposite party. The incident happened on 14.05.2022 when the earlier guidelines No.J-24/9/2014-CPU(pt.) dated 21.04.2017 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) were in force. These guidelines provided that as and when the bill is presented to the customer, it must clearly display that the service charges are voluntary and the service charge column of the bill may be left blank for the customer to fill up before making the payment. So the act and conduct of the opposite party by imposing service charges under disguised abbreviated heading “S.C.” in the invoice dated 14.05.2022 Ex. C1 amounts to unfair trade practice. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite party is made to refund service charge of Rs.1182.76 to the complainant along with interest @8% from 14.05.2022 till date of actual payment along with composite cost of Rs.10,000/-.
6. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte with an order that the opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.1182.76 to the complainant along with interest @8% from 14.05.2022 till the date of actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:02.02.2023.
Gobind Ram.
Neeraj Kumar Goyal Vs M/s. Penthouse CC/22/268
Present: Sh. Amit Sood, Advocate for complainant.
OPs exparte.
The learned counsel for the complainant closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3.
Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed exparte with an order that the opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.1182.76 to the complainant along with interest @8% from 14.05.2022 till the date of actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:02.02.2023.
Gobind Ram.
