CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.127/2016
Dated this the 3rd day of July 2019.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. Hon’ble : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Smt.Rose Jose, Hon’ble President
This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for his mental harassment and financial exploitation of the opposite parties and the cost of the proceedings.
The case of the petitioner is that, in the night of 07.02.2016, the complainant with his family had taken food from the opposite party’s hotel. While taking food they used 1 bottle of mineral water placed on the table named ‘Aquafina’(Batch No.5414 C 14 B16) with MRP Rs.20/- when the petitioner got the bill, he noticed the exorbitant amount charged for the mineral water ie.Rs.10/- over and above the MRP of Rs.20/-. When he questioned about this exorbitant price the Manager one Mr. Sojen informed them that “ it is its price, the additional amount charged is their tax and the price was fixed by their owner”. More over the opposite parties threatened him that ‘without paying the amount they will not allow him to go’.
After the payment the opposite parties hesitated to issue a detailed bill to him. After that on the same day itself he complained to the police about the grievances suffered by him as a customer from the staff of the opposite party’s hotel. According to the petitioner, the opposite party has no right to charge an amount exceeding the MRP and the charging of excess amount is unfair trade practice. This acts of the opposite party is illegal and caused much mental agony and financial loss to him. Hence the petition seeking relief.
On receiving notice the opposite party appeared and filed version denying all the allegations as false and baseless and they contended that, the complainant and his family consumed food articles and water using the facilities provided by the opposite party such as table, high quality serving dishes, classes, chair, A/C Fan light music etc. Moreover waiter served the food and water to them with very care and cautions and they are used to serve water in glasses along with food. In addition as demanded by the petitioner they supplied cooled bottled water also. As per the Menu card placed on the table, the price for 1 liter bottled water is Rs.30/- and after perusing the menu Card, he ordered the food and cooled bottled water.
The allegation of the complainant is that he came to know the price of the water only at the time of billing is false, after going through the menu card only he has ordered the food items. They have supplied the cooled bottle water and poured the same as per the demands of the complainant and this bill is only as per menu. Due to these facilities they can charge more than MRP for bottled water. The allegation of the petitioner about threatening “Not to go outside without the payment of full amount” is false and baseless.
It is stated that petitioner have no allegation regarding food and its supply and they have issued the bill for the food items and cooled water bottles only in accordance with the facilities provided to the petitioner as per the price noted on the menu card. Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part as alleged and he is not liable to compensate the petitioner. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.
Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext.A1 and deposition PW1 and Ext.B1.
According to the petitioner collection of excess amount of Rs.10/- for cooled water bottle by the opposite party is over and above its MRP is unfair trade practice. The bill issued by the opposite party is produced to prove his allegations and marked as Ext.A1. According to the petitioner the charging exorbitant price over and above of its MRP is unfair trade practice. But this is denied by the opposite party and according to them the MRP is applicable only to retail shops and is not applicable in hotel business, here they are providing extra facilities, such as seating facilities, fan, A/c, tables, lights and waiters who are servicing food and water to them will very care and caution. They have charged the price only as per the Menu card. The opposite party produced menu card and was marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 shows at the price of cooled water is given as Rs.30/-. They further submitted that after reading the menu card the petitioner had ordered the food items and bottled water. The petitioner has no case that they have not supplied water with food. As per the depositions of PW1 Hotel കളിൽ നമ്മൾ ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നതിനനുസരിച്ച് വെളളം തരും എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശരിയാണ്.” Hence it shows that along with food, opposite parties are also serving water without charging extra amount. But when the customers are in need of cooled water bottle, it will be charged with additional amount.
The opposite party produced copy of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Food crat of Hotel and Restaurants Associates of India Vs Union of India and other KHC2018(1)IOISC a support of his arguments. Where in it is held that ‘charging prices of mineral water in excess of MRP printed on the packaging during the services of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provision of the SWM Act as this does not constitute a sale or transfer of these commodities by the hoteliers to its customers’. The customers does not enter a hotel or a restaurant to make simple purchase of these commodities. It is further held that neither the standards of weights and measures Act 1976 read with the enactment of 1985, nor the legal metrology Act 2009, would apply so as to interdict the sale of mineral water in hotels and restaurants at prices which are above the MRP food and drinks takes place.
So considering the matter in the case and based on the decision made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard, we are of the view that there is no base in the arguments of the petitioner for getting cooled water bottles at the rate of MRP in a standard hotel or restaurant. If one is utilizing the facilities provided in a hotel they are bound to pay extra amount also. Hence we did not find any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and so it is found that this petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the petition is dismissed and the parties will bear their costs.
Dated this 3rd day of July 2019
Date of filing: 11.03.2016.
SD/- MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. The bill issued by the opposite party dtd.27.02.2016
A2.Bill issued by the opposite party for Rs.138/- dtd.17.05.17.
A3. Bill issued by Cochin Majlis Food Mall dtd.11.10.2016.
A4. Bill issued by The Light House dtd.31.07.2016
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1.The Price of cooled water is given as Rs.30/-
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Asif (complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
