LAWS(NCD)-2004-1-331

SARVAJEET SINGH Vs. BATRA HOTEL RAWATSAR

Decided On January 22, 2004
SARVAJEET SINGH Appellant
V/S
Batra Hotel Rawatsar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. THIS is complainant's appeal against the order dated 21.12.2000 whereby the D. F. , Hanumangarh dismissed his Complaint No.185/20000. The grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that the respondent, who runs his hotel in the business name of "batra Hotel" at bus stand, Rawatsar charged Rs.5/- over and above the price of each of the 3 bottles of soft drink, which he had purchased from the respondent on 8.7.2000. The explanation of the respondent was that although he should have sold the 3 bottles of soft drink for Rs.40/- each but he had charged a sum of Rs.5/- in excess of the price of each bottle on the ground that such drinks are supplied to the customers and the service charges are realised from the customers. It was also pleaded that in order to supply cold drink as per requirement of the customers, the drink has to be kept cold and, therefore, extra amount of Rs.5/- for each bottle was charged from them. The D. F. held that charging the extra price for the above reason did not constitute "restrictive trade practice" on the part of the respondent.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that neither in the bill issued by the respondent nor in any notice exhibited in his hotel it was communicated to the customers of the cold drinks that they shall be charged Rs.5/- extra per bottle as service charges. Thus without there being any condition between the parties for paying and charging Rs.5/- per bottle over and above the actual price and at the same time not issuing any receipt for so charging the price from them amounted to "restrictive trade practice".

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent could not dispute the facts of the case as stated above but contended that since the drinks in the bottle has to be kept cold by the respondent, a charge of Rs.5/- per bottle was justified and the same did not amount to restrictive trade practice on the part of the respondent.