ENTERTAINMENT PARADISE (E.P.) Vs. BHAVNISH KUMAWAT
LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2006-7-1
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 19,2006

Entertainment Paradise (E.P.) Appellant
VERSUS
BHAVNISH KUMAWAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STANDARD AUTOMOBILES V. DR. SYED ASHRAF [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. C D PATEL [REFERRED TO]
EKO ELECTRONICS VS. SAIRA MEHTA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant -opposite party against the order dated 24.1.2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur in case No. 842/2005 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed in the manner that the appellant was directed to return to the complainant -respondent a sum of Rs. 6 and 66 paise, as price charged in excess for two bottles of mineral water within two months from the date of order failing which the complainant -respondent would be entitled to get interest on the above amount at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till payment was made and the appellant was further directed to pay to the complainant -respondent sum of Rs. 3,000 as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation.
(2.)IT may be stated here that the complainant -respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant before the District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur on 15.9.2005 stating inter alia that on 28th August, 2005, he had visited the Cinema Hall of the appellant for the purpose of seeing movie "No Entry" and he had purchased two tickets of platinum class after paying Rs. 160 (Rs. 80 per ticket). It was further stated in the complaint that since the complainant -respondent was feeling thirst, therefore, he wanted to drink water, but there was no facility of drinking water in the Cinema Hall of the appellant and, thus, he had purchased two bottles of mineral water after paying Rs. 30 (Rs. 15 per bottle), whereas market value of one bottle of mineral water was Rs. 10. Thus, the appellant had charged excess amount while selling the bottles of mineral water to the complainant -respondent and for that, the present complaint was filed.
(3.)A reply was filed by the appellant stating inter alia that facilities of drinking water have been provided by the appellant in the Cinema Hall and the fact that one bottle of mineral water was sold in the Cinema of the appellant for Rs. 13.33 was not in dispute as slip of EP Canteen is on the record.
After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum, Jaipur -II, Jaipur through order dated 24.1.2007 had allowed the complaint of the complainant -respondent in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia that one bottle of mineral water was having fixed price of Rs. 10, but the appellant had charged Rs. 13.33 for one bottle of mineral water from the complainant respondent and, thus, the appellant had charged excess amount of Rs. 3.33 per bottle of mineral water and for that deficiency in service, the impugned order was passed.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.