BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                        : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                           : MEMBER

C.C. No. 274/2017 Filed on 17.07.2017

ORDER DATED: 26.12.2019

Complainant:

Abhijit A.R., ‘Swathi’, Kariyam, Sreekaryam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 017.

                             (Party in person)

Opposite party:

The Manager, Pattom Royal Hotel, T.C. 3/2778, Pattom Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

This case having been heard on 30.10.2019, the Forum on 26.12.2019 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER

The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant was attracted by the traditional buffet lunch offered by opposite party by seeing their advertisement in the website and also the flex board of the same.  The advertisement narrated Rs. 299/- only and nowhere it was mentioned extra tax is applicable.  While dining with his family the complainant was charged Rs. 299/- plus GST at 18%.  This is cheating.  Packaged drinking water was supplied-but they billed it as mineral water.  This is cheating.  The maximum retail price of water is Rs. 20/- only.  But they charged Rs. 40/-.  Hence the complaint to get back the amount charged as GST together with excess price levied for the water, cost of litigation including travel expenses, and also action against the opposite party for excess amounts levied over and above the MRP from other consumers. 

Opposite party filed version contending as follows:  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is true that the complainant was a guest at the opposite party hotel on 16.07.2017.  The traditional buffet lunch is offered at Rs. 299/- per head and a flex was advertised to this aspect.  This flex was fixed long before GST came into being.  The alleged issue impugned in the present complaint arose on 16.07.2017, i.e; within a few days of GST coming into force.  However, it is made clear that nowhere in the advertisement has this opposite party confirmed or affirmed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 299/- is inclusive of all taxes.  As a service provider and as under the law and rules in force GST is to be levied.  Not even a single paisa over and above the GST rate has been collected from the complainant.  Hence for obeying the law in force a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice cannot be attributed as against the opposite party.  Thus there is no question of levying more than MRP as stated in the complaint.  Regarding the allegation of mineral water and packaged drinking water, the complainant had already raised this issue with the legal and metrology department.  Hence the complainant cannot raise the issue further again before this Forum and the same is barred by res judicata.  Only the relevant charges applicable to a bottle of packaged drinking water has been collected from the complainant.  It is further submitted that the services offered by the opposite party is not limited to a mere sale of a bottle of water over the counter.  The service and tax imposed is a composite charge which includes incidental charges for food, drinks etc.  The opposite party enjoys high patronage and reputation in Trivandrum and that is because of the quality of their food and service.  The complainant is making a mountain out of a molehill.  Trivial matters and trifles are exaggeratedly put forward by the complainant.  The only aim of the complainant is to tarnish the good name of the opposite party in public.  There has been no fault, shortcoming or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite party.   

Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Exts. P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the complainant.  The complainant was cross examined as PW1.  Opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination.   Opposite party filed argument note.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite
3.  

(ii)      If so, what is the relief and cost?    

Issue (i) :- The complaint is filed for getting compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  The complainant was attracted by the traditional buffet lunch offered by opposite party by seeing their advertisement in the website and also the flex board of the same.  According to the opposite party the flex board was fixed long before GST came into being.  No documentary evidence produced by the opposite party to show the date of fixing the flex board.  The opposite party acted against the advertisement and received excess amount.  The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. 

Issues (ii) & (iii):- We perused the relevant documents on record.  The opposite party stated that nowhere in the advertisement has confirmed or affirmed that the amount of Rs. 299/- is inclusive of all taxes.  Ordinarily the complainant attracted the advertisement and he had gone to the opposite party for food.  According to the complainant the alleged issue impugned in the present complaint arose on 10.07.2017 and GST coming into force on 01.07.2017.  In the advertisement the opposite party can be mentioned the GST is excluded or included.  At the time of examination PW1 deposed that “നിയമാനുസൃതമായി tax കൊടുക്കാന്‍ ഞാ൯ ബാധ്യസ്ഥനാണ്”.  But the opposite party had not mentioned the rate of food with GST or without GST.  After seeing the advertisement in the website and the flex board the complainant had attracted the lunch of opposite party.  The opposite party has not produced evidence to prove that they had given their advertisement with proper.  As per Ext. P1 packaged drinking water was supplied and they billed it as mineral water.  No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party.  The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  We direct the opposite party to pay     Rs. 2,000/- as the excess charge with compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.    

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 26^th day of December 2019.           

        Sd/-       

P.SUDHIR                              : PRESIDENT

        Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR  : MEMBER

       Sd/-

VIJU V.R                               : MEMBER   

C.C. No. 274/2017

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Abhijit

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of bill dated 16.07.2017

P2     - Copy of website advertisement

P3     - Copy of advertisement

P4     - Copy of photo of the bottle

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb