Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/89/2018

Mr. P.R. Singhania - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sankalp Restaurant - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/89/2018
Date of Institution	:	08/02/2018
Date of Decision	:	06/01/2022

 

Mr.P.R.Singhania, H.No.3029, 2^nd Floor, Ajanta Enclave, Sector-51D, Chandigarh-160047.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Sankalp Restaurant C/o Amar Food Plaza SCO 11, Sector-26, Chandigarh-160026 (Through its Owner/ Proprietor).
2. M/s Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office: B-91, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110064 (Through its CEO/Authorized Person).
3. M/s Kandhari Beverages Ltd. Plot No.460, HSIDC, Industrial Growth Centre, Saha-133104, Distt. Ambala (Haryana) (Through its CEO/Authorized Person).
4. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare First Floor, NBCC Place, Bhisham Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar, New Delhi-110003 (Through its Authorized Officer).
5. Commissioner of Food Safety Room No.411, 4^th Floor, Chandigarh U.T. Secretariat Delux Building Sector-9, Chandigarh-160017 (Through its Authorized Officer).
6. Designated Officer/Civil Surgeon Old Civil Hospital Ambala City, Haryana-134003.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for OP No.2.
	:	None for OP No.3.
	:	None for OP No.4.
	:	Dr.Shri Ram, Govt. Pleader for OP No.5.
	:	None for OP No.6.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      The long and short of the allegations are that the complainant had visited Opposite Party No.1 on 13.02.2016 to have some food. It was observed that the ‘Kinley’ bottled water was already lying kept on all the unoccupied tables, which gave an impression that complementary bottled water might have been provided to its customers. As per complaint, after finishing dinner, Opposite Party No.1 gave to the complainant bill for Rs.394/-. Water bottle supplied by Opposite Party No.1 was of Kinley brand and price charged for the same in the bill was Rs.45/- for 1 Ltr. water. The copy of the said bill is annexed as Annexure C-1. As per complainant, the water bottle was inspected and it was nowhere found written on the water bottle about MRP, date of manufacture, batch number etc. The complainant asked to Opposite Party No.1, but did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant further raised question about the amount charged more than double of the prevailing price in the market. Reply was given that it is the trade practice of the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant paid the bill amount of Rs.394/-. The complainant purchased 1 Ltr. Kinley water bottle for Rs.20/- for evidence purposes from Thakkar Confectionery, Sector 44, Chandigarh and the same may be produced as evidence. The copy of the said bill is annexed as Annexure C-2. The Opposite Party No.1 has as such charged Rs.25/- in excess of MRP, which is undoubtedly unfair trade practice. The complainant got served upon the Opposite Party No.1, a legal notice on 22.02.2016. The copy of legal notice is annexed as Annexure C-3. The complainant sent an email on 27.03.2016 at email address, followed by letter dated 04.06.2016 for the redressal of grievances, but of no avail. Copies of both emails and letter are annexed as Annexure C-4 & C-5. As per complaint, the complainant called on 16.02.2016, customer care executive of the Opposite Party No.2 & 3, and various emails on 10.03.2016. The copies of emails are annexed as Annexure C-6, C-7 & C-8. Therefore, the complainant wrote a complaint letter on 25.06.2016 to Opposite Party No.4 and 5. The copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure C-9. The complainant received reply on 11.07.2016 which is annexed as Annexure C-10.

        Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant complaint.    

2.     Opposite Party No.1 contested the consumer complaint. The primary allegation of the complainant is that he was charged more than the MRP printed on the bottle. If the MRP was not printed on the bottle, the complainant of charging more than the printed MRP does not hold any water. He also says that the bottle may be counterfeit. The complainant is himself not clear about his cause of action. Moreover, if the complainant found the bottle to be without the mandatory printing, he should have refused to use the bottle and ask for another one which was in compliance of the laws. The complainant ought to have called the enforcement agencies there and then, so that the alleged violation could be ascertained and dealt with there and then. Complaint as is being made by the complainant can be best dealt with on the spot. The menu of any restaurant is the primary document which governs the relationship between the customer and the restaurant. All the items and their prices are duly mentioned in the menu. A customer places his order only after going through the menu items and their prices. A Copy of the menu of the Opposite Party No.1 is annexed as Annexure R-1/1. The price of bottled water is duly mentioned therein as Rs.45/- which is the price charged from the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has deliberately not made a mention about the menu, in order to mislead this Forum and made out a false claim for him. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, on this ground alone.
3.     Opposite Party No.2 contested the consumer complaint. Opposite Party No.2 is not the manufacturer of the impugned bottle and has no connection or relation to the said bottle as it is neither the manufacturer nor packer thereof. Further, the bill produced by the complainant mentions only bottle water and does not state that Kinley water bottle was bought by the complainant. Hence, in absence of any evidence connecting the bill with bottle in question does not arise. The bottle was inspected by the counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and photographs of the bottle and label were clicked and liberty was given to produce the photographs. The copy of photographs of the bottle and label are annexed as Exhibit OP-2/A. The bottle was manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 and the name of Opposite Party No.2 does not appear anywhere on the said bottle. The present complaint is without basis and ought to be dismissed.
4.     Opposite Party No.3 contested the consumer complaint. The complaint is based on a bottle having no MRP, batch No. and date printed on it and further selling of bottle at higher price. The complaint deserves to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.3 as no bottle at plant of company can leave the plant without statutory particulars printed on it. The particulars regarding batch No., MRP, Date of manufacture are printed on the neck of bottle in ink which can be easily removed with the help of erasing chemicals. The allegations are false, frivolous and baseless.
5.     The Opposite Party No.4 contested the consumer complaint. The Opposite Party No.4 is a department recognized under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, it is neither a service provider to the complainant nor any goods have been sold by the Opposite Party No.4 to the complainant. Moreover, during the pendency of the present case Opposite Party No.1 had also filed an application for deleting the name of Opposite Party No.4 to 6 on 21.05.2018. The allegations on Opposite Party No.4 are likely to be dismissed on the grounds.
6.     Opposite Party No.5 contested the consumer complaint. The Opposite Party No.5 is responsible for Food Safety and Standards and being a Law Enforcement Agency and Regulatory Body is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. The Food Licence is granted for the business of restaurant. The Opposite Party No.5 is concerned with the mentioning of name of the food, list of ingredients, nutritional information, declaration of food to be vegetarian or non-vegetarian, declaration of food additives, name and complete address of the manufacturer, net quality for imported food and instructions for use. It is on the basis of said inspection report that the Food Licence was renewed for a term of five year i.e. upto 22.04.2021. The computer generated inspection report is annexed as Annexure OP-5/1. Hence, allegations are false, frivolous and baseless.
7.     Opposite Party No.6 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case the answering deponent has not acted as a trader or service provider as they have not charged for the goods provided and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Dr.Vinod Gupta the Civil Surgeon, Ambala got inspected the unit by deputing the Food Safety Officer at M/s Khandhari Beverage Ltd. Industrial growth Centre Saha, Distt. Ambala on 10.03.2018 and who has inspected the unit and prepared the spot inspection report and water sample of Kinley water was also taken further same was sent to the Food Analyst, Haryana, District Food Laboratory, Karnal for its analaysis vide letter No.FSO/52/53 on 10.03.2018. Further added that the analysis report of above mentioned Kinley water sample has been sent by the Food Analyst Haryana, District Food Laboratory, Karnal Vide their office letter No.KNL/DFL/2018/139 on 26.04.2018 and the same has been received in the office of deponent on 30.04.2018 and the sample report conformed the prescribed standard to the Food Safety & Standard Act 2006. Photo Copies of inspection report and water sample Analysis report are annexed as Annexure A-1 & A-2 respectively. The complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Forum by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case.   
8.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
9.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
10.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
11.     There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has consumed/used the Kinley water bottled of 1 Ltr. dated 13.02.2016 in the premises of the Opposite Party No.1 Sankalp Restaurant for Rs.45/- vide bill Annexure C-1. It is also undisputed that one Kinley water bottle of 1 Ltr. is elsewhere available at Rs.20/- with same quantity and brand name. It is to be seen whether Opposite Party No.1 had billed & charged higher price for consumption of the Kinley water bottle of 1 Ltr., in the premises of the restaurant/hotel than the price of the available 1 Ltr. Kinley water bottle at lower rates in the market or not, and committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
12.     Here we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Pallavi Refractories vs. Sangarenni Collieries Company Limited (2005) 2 SCC 227, on the question of dual price. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no such law that a particular commodity cannot have a dual fixation of price and that dual fixation of price based on reasonable classification from different types of customers has met with approval from the courts. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Associated Hotels of India (1972) 1 SCC 472 and Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 36 has held that it was recognized that there is no sale when food and drink are supplied to guests residing in a hotel or in a restaurant. The rational is that the customer is paying more than the price of the good including the services provided, for instance, enjoying the ambience of the hotel or restaurant. In the case of Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India and Others vs. Union of India and others 139 (2007) DLT 7, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that charging prices for mineral water in excess of the M.R.P. printed on the packaging during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measurement Act, 1976. The Complainant has thus failed to prove the allegations against the opposite parties. The authorities relied upon by the Complainant in support of his Complaint are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present controversy that there is no law that a particular commodity cannot have a dual fixation of price.
13.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/01/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
Ls	Member	Member	President