Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/240/2017

G.Thabre Alam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Buhari Hotel (Mount road) - Opp.Party(s)

Najeeb Usmankhan

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                      Date of Filing  : 18.04.2017

                                                                   Date of Order : 22.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B., PGDCLP.               : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER-II

             

C.C. NO.240/2017

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019

G. Thabre Alam,

S/o. Mr. Gulfam Sahib,

No.26, Rajiv Nagar,

Seelanaickanpatti,

Salem District.                                                             .. Complainant.

..Versus..

 

M/s. Buhari Hotel, (Mount Road),

Represented by its Manager,

No.83, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                   .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for complainant   :  M/s. K. Najeeb Usman Khan & others Opposite party                   :  Exparte     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying to pay of a sum of Rs.9.90 towards service charge collected from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony  with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.

1.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that on 01.07.2016, he came down to Chennai to attend some important work and at about 07.00 p.m. he happened to have dinner at the opposite party’s hotel.  In the bill issued by the opposite party he was shocked to find that Rs.9.90/- was added as service charge.   The complainant submits that he informed the opposite party that without any information prior to the serving of food, it was not fair to claim any service charge on the food and also requested the opposite party to cut the said amount in the bill but the opposite party refused to accept his request and insisted him to pay service charge.   The complainant paid the bill including the said service charge under compulsion.  Evenafter repeated requests and demands, the opposite party refused to waive the service charge. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:03.08.2016 for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:18.08.2016 with untenable contentions.  The complainant submits that the opposite party should inform the complainant about the collection of service charge before placing orders of Menu.  Mere serving the menu card and after providing meals collecting service charge is against the law.  The complainant submits that the opposite party explained that for better administration of the hotels service charges being collected.  The act of collecting service charges in hotels / restaurants amount to unfair trade practice which has caused great mental agony to the complainant.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     Inspite of sufficient time is given, the opposite party did not file his written version within the stipulated time and therefore, the opposite party was set Exparte.  

3.     Though the opposite party remained Exparte, this Forum is to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this Forum. 

4.     In such circumstances, in order to prove the allegations made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also documents Ex.A1 to  Ex.A5  are marked.   

5.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,509.90/- towards compensation for mental agony and the amount of service charge etc collected with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite party remained Exparte.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel.  Perused the records namely the complaint, proof affidavit of complainant and documents.  The complainant pleaded and  contended that on 01.07.2016, when he had dinner at the opposite party’s hotel, he was compelled to pay service charge of Rs.9.90/- as per Ex.A1, bill which was paid through credit card as per Ex.A2.   Evenafter repeated requests and demands, the opposite party refused to waive the service charge.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:03.08.2016 as per Ex.A3 for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:18.08.2016 as per Ex.A5 with untenable contentions. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party should inform the complainant about the collection of service charge before placing orders of Menu.  Mere serving the menu card and after providing meals collecting service charge is against the law which amounts to unfair trade practice.  Further the contention of the complainant is that for better administration of the hotels, collecting service charge is not acceptable.  Equally, instead of collecting tips collecting service charge also cannot be permitted. 

7.     The learned Counsel for the complainant brought to the notice of this Forum regarding the letter to the Secretary from the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution which reads as follows:

“In the hotels and restaurants are following the practice of charging ‘Service charge’ in the range of 5-20% in lieu of tips.  A consumer is forced to pay this charge irrespective of the kind of service provided to him.  The consumers are also required to pay service tax on this service charge so collected by the hotels and restaurants.   The Hotel Association of India observed that the service charge is completely discretionary.  Should a customer be dissatisfied with the dining experience he/she can have it waived off.  Therefore, it is deemed to be accepted voluntarily.   In the hotel/restaurants that the ‘service charges’ are discretionary / voluntarily and a consumer dissatisfied with the services can have it waived off” proves that the service charge is voluntary not compulsory.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party is not entitled to collect service charge compulsorily.   Hence, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall refund the service charge of Rs.9.90/- with a compensation Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.9.90/- (Rupees Nine and ninety paise only) being the service charge paid and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

		Copy of bill of the opposite party to complainant
		Copy of credit card receipt of the complainant
		Copy of menu card of the opposite party
		Copy of notice of the complainant to the opposite party with acknowledgement card
		Copy of reply by the opposite party to the complainant with postal cover

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT