BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.302/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 13^th January 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000,000/- with such other reliefs.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the on 14.04.2015 complainant has visited the hotel of opposite party called “Blue Star” and he has consumed 7 king fisher premium beer bottle.  Opposite party has charged Rs.140/- each, apart from that he has collected 5% service charge, and also collected 5.5% vat and sales tax of Rs.4.94% and surcharge of Rs.4.94%.  Thereby, opposite party has charged Rs.162/- under the different head of tax apart from collecting the cost of beer which is not permissible, which amounts unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  The opposite party  is extracting money from customer in the said manner which is illegal.  Subsequently, the complainant visited Big Bazaar, where he had purchased one king fisher premium beer at the cost of Rs.100/- per bottle which includes vat and other taxes.  Without any explanation, the opposite party has collected Rs.40/- extra per bottle, it amounts unfair trade practice and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for wrongful act.  Hence, this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs.
3.     The opposite party appeared before this Forum and submitted the following version:- This opposite party is running 3 Star Hotel with all luxury facilities.  It is admitted that on 14.04.2015, complainant has consumed 7 king fisher premium beer with all luxury facilities.  Thereby, he cannot question the charges made by the opposite party.  Only after looking to the menu list, the complainant has ordered and consumed 7 king fisher premium beer.  Thereby, the complainant cannot question the difference in value of the king fisher premium beer bottle.  On 15.04.2015, the complainant came with roudies and made galata against the staff of the opposite party hotel.  This opposite party has received the legal notice which is with all false allegations and thereby opposite party has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.     On the above contentions, the case is posted for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.  Likewise, on behalf of opposite party one Nagesh, Manager of the opposite party hotel filed the affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.   After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.   
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that the opposite party has collected excess amount of Rs.40/- per bottle for king fisher premium beer, thereby it amounts to unfair trade practice, as such the complainant is entitled for the relief?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7. Point No.1:- Taking service by the present complainant on 14.04.2015 in the opposite party is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that the opposite party has collected Rs.140/- per bottle for king fisher premium beer.  It is also not in dispute that the opposite party has also collected service charge, vat, sales tax and surcharge from the complainant.  Thereby, the complainant has placed materials i.e. the receipt for having visited the hotel of opposite party and paid the amount at the rate of Rs.140/- per bottle for king fisher premium beer.  Likewise, the complainant has also produced the receipt for having purchased one king fisher premium beer bottle from Big Bazaar at the rate of Rs.100 per bottle.
8.    With this admitted facts, what is the defence taken by the opposite party is to be looked into.  The main contention of opposite party is that it is a 3 Star Hotel with luxury facilities.  Thereby, for having provided facilities, the opposite party has charged Rs.140/- for king fisher premium bottle per bottle.  The complainant only after looking to the menu list has accepted the rates shown therein and get the service from the opposite party.  Thereby, he cannot now question the same rates before this Forum.  The complaint is filed only with an intention to gain wrongfully.  Thereby, the opposite party sought for dismissal of the complaint.
9.    Taking into consideration, the rival contention of both parties, this Forum finds that opposite party admittedly has charged excess amount of Rs.40/- per bottle, it amounts to 7 bottle x 40 = 280/-.  Opposite party ought to have charged Rs.700/- only to 7 king fisher premium beer.  Thereby, the opposite party has collected more amount than the MRP shown on the bottle which amounts to unfair trade practice.  The other explanation given by the opposite party is that it is 3 Star Hotel.  Thereby, charges are made at the said rate which is being accepted by the complainant while taking service.  But, such submissions of opposite party cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the opposite party has charged totally the service charge, vat, sales tax and sur charge.  Thereby, the opposite party has collected totally Rs.280/- in excess of the MRP shown on the bottle, when the opposite party is charging service charges for having provided the luxury facilities in their hotel, the opposite party cannot take shelter stating that more charges are levied on bear bottles than what was MRP.  In the circumstances, collecting more amount nf bear bottles as well as all the taxes from the customer amounts to unfair trade practice.  The opposite party is at liberty to collect the MRP charges on the product in addition to it, it is at liberty impose service charges and other taxes on the consumer.  Thereby, in this case, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in charging more price than what was the MRP shown on the beer bottle.  Accordingly, the complainant is to be suitably compensated.  Hence, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for having committed unfair trade practice in its business and also Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, the said sum of Rs.52,000/- shall carry interest at 18% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 11.05.2015 till payment.
3. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
4. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 13^th January 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER