HOTEL NYAY MANDIR Vs. ISHWAR LAL JINABHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. S.K. Naik, Member-This revision petition has been filed by Hotel Nyay Mandir, the opposite party No. 1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch (District Forum for short) against the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (State Commission for short), vide which the State Commission while dismissing their appeal and also imposing a cost of Rs. 6,000 on them, has upheld the finding recorded by the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 18.8.2005 had allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs. 22 being the excess amount charged towards cold drinks served to the complainant and also pay Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 1,000 as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation respectively. Besides, the District Forum had also directed the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to be deposited in a Consumer Welfare Fund within a period of 30 days.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant, are that on 14.5.2003 he purchased four bottles of cold drink 'MIRINDA' for which the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 charged excessive amount of Rs. 72 whereas the actual cost of one bottle was Rs. 12.50. The complainant alleged that the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 ought to have charged Rs. 12.50 per bottle as it was the actual price appearing on the label of the bottle but it had charged Rs. 18 per bottle. Taking this sole ground and pleading deficiency in service the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum praying for, (i) refund of Rs. 22 charged in excess from him; (ii) call for the figures of sale of cold drinks for the last three years at the place of petitioner hotel and direct them to deposit the differential amount as donation with any Consumer Association; (iii) 12% interest on the amount of refund; and (iv) Rs. 5,000 as compensation. The respondent/complainant had also impleaded Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. as opposite party No. 2 in the array of the complaint filed by him but no relief was claimed against them. The District Forum after hearing the arguments of the parties allowed the complaint in the manner referred to above.

(3.) THE petitioner/opposite party No. 1 not satisfied with the order of the District Forum filed an appeal before the State Commission, who too did not find any merit in the same and dismissed it with a cost of Rs. 6,000. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioner/opposite party No. 1.