LC your cant charge above MRP movement is working
Great case study circles. Here in hyderabad meridian restaurant charged a consumer 10 rs over MRP and had to pay a fine of INR 25000. All legal metrology controllers must wake up to implement this asap
Consumer dispute forum has directed the Meridian Restaurant, Punjagutta, to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to a customer for charging Rs 10 extra for a water bottle.
Complaint Mohammed Mohsin resident of Balanagar on July 13, 2019, went to Meridian Restaurant for supper. However, the restaurant charged Rs.10 extra on Kinley Water bottle.
The complainant alleged that instead of Rs.20 MRP, the opposite party collected Rs.30. He alleged that the attitude of the employees was very rude.
The complainant approached the Commission claiming compensation and costs.
The restaurant however denied all the allegations. The opposite party submitted that as per the judgment of Apex Court in "The Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India Vs Union of India and others in civil appeal No.21790/2017, they are entitled to collect the excess amount".
The opposite party further submitted that there is no deficiency on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
After examining the documents and evidence provided by both the parties, the forum observed that, the opposite party who admitted the collection of excess amount of Rs.10 on M.R.P. defended the same by relying on Apex Court Judgment.
The forum said that para 15 of Apex Court Judgment reads
"3. Applicability of chapter: - The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
a) Packages of commodities containing a quantity of more than 25 kg or 25 liters excluding cement and fertilizer sold in bags up to 50 kg and,
b) Packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers or institutional consumers. Explanation: - For the purpose of this rule: -
(i) "Institutional consumer" means the institution who buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturer for use by that institution".
"The opposite party relies on the above judgment and did not file any proof to show that it will come under the purview of institutional consumer. Moreover, the opposite party also failed to establish that it purchased the commodity i.e., Kinley mineral water bottle directly from the manufacturer" said the forum.
The forum also added in the absence of any clarification as observed by the apex court they cannot interpret the apex court judgment in the particular case in hand. "We are under the considered view that the order of the apex court was misinterpreted as per their convenience and as such the point is answered accordingly in favor of the complainant," said the forum.
The forum ordered the restaurant to refund Rs.10 collected from the complainant together with interest at 12 percent from 13 July 2019 till the date of realization. The forum also asked to pay an amount of Rs.20,000 towards compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant and pay Rs.5000 towards costs of litigation. more
Consumer dispute forum has directed the Meridian Restaurant, Punjagutta, to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to a customer for charging Rs 10 extra for a water bottle.
Complaint Mohammed Mohsin resident of Balanagar on July 13, 2019, went to Meridian Restaurant for supper. However, the restaurant charged Rs.10 extra on Kinley Water bottle.
The complainant alleged that instead of Rs.20 MRP, the opposite party collected Rs.30. He alleged that the attitude of the employees was very rude.
The complainant approached the Commission claiming compensation and costs.
The restaurant however denied all the allegations. The opposite party submitted that as per the judgment of Apex Court in "The Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India Vs Union of India and others in civil appeal No.21790/2017, they are entitled to collect the excess amount".
The opposite party further submitted that there is no deficiency on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
After examining the documents and evidence provided by both the parties, the forum observed that, the opposite party who admitted the collection of excess amount of Rs.10 on M.R.P. defended the same by relying on Apex Court Judgment.
The forum said that para 15 of Apex Court Judgment reads
"3. Applicability of chapter: - The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
a) Packages of commodities containing a quantity of more than 25 kg or 25 liters excluding cement and fertilizer sold in bags up to 50 kg and,
b) Packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers or institutional consumers. Explanation: - For the purpose of this rule: -
(i) "Institutional consumer" means the institution who buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturer for use by that institution".
"The opposite party relies on the above judgment and did not file any proof to show that it will come under the purview of institutional consumer. Moreover, the opposite party also failed to establish that it purchased the commodity i.e., Kinley mineral water bottle directly from the manufacturer" said the forum.
The forum also added in the absence of any clarification as observed by the apex court they cannot interpret the apex court judgment in the particular case in hand. "We are under the considered view that the order of the apex court was misinterpreted as per their convenience and as such the point is answered accordingly in favor of the complainant," said the forum.
The forum ordered the restaurant to refund Rs.10 collected from the complainant together with interest at 12 percent from 13 July 2019 till the date of realization. The forum also asked to pay an amount of Rs.20,000 towards compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant and pay Rs.5000 towards costs of litigation. more
Viewed by 536
View all 6 comments Below 6 comments
Lets see. Hotels provide service in addition to water bottle - chair in a nice restaurant, air conditioning, waiter to bring the bottle to the table, etc etc. Can all this be offered for Rs. 20? MRP should not apply in hotel/restaurant premises, where there is an element of service and other addons (nowadays it is expensive to sanitize the seating). MRP is OK if one is buying from a shop to take away and consume elsewhere. What if hotels refuse to serve by 'bottle' and only serve by 'glass'? Consumers have the option not to buy at the price on the menu or not to visit a hotel/restaurant if it is beyond their means. Otherwise even beggars would visit 5 Star properties 'to buy water bottle at Rs. 20 and use their toilets, airconditioned lounge etc Consumer rights should be reasonable. Just my thoughts. Would like to see a discussion on Consumer Responsibilities and Duties. more
Jan 28
Very interesting case. Thanks for posting. Can you give the details of the location of the commission and case/ruling number? more
Jan 28
