ZAIKA BAZAR Vs. HEMANT GOEL
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2006-10-8
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 09,2006

Zaika Bazar Appellant
VERSUS
Hemant Goel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) APPELLANT runs a food restaurant. On the complaint that it had charged Rs. 34 for a mineral water of Aquafina against the maximum retail price of Rs. 12 printed thereon, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 27.4.2006 directed to discontinue this practice of charging higher amount than MRP of that item and to pay sum of Rs. 4,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.
(2.) THROUGH this appeal the impugned order has been assailed firstly on the ground that the water was served along with the dinner and not by way of delivering as packaged water bottle and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to charge Rs. 34 because of the article being in unsealed or in unpacked condition and secondly that sale of the mineral water is not the core activity of the appellant.
(3.) ON the fact of it a very strange plea has been raised by the appellant that whenever any article is served like this by opening the sealed bottle of water in loose glasses it entitles the service provider to charge any amount. In this case the appellant charged three times the maximum retail price printed on the bottle. Such a practice is all the more highly unscrupulous and unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service as it takes in its fold any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, quantity and nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in relation to any service. There is no other inference to be drawn from such a practice adopted by the appellant than to circumvent and defeat the provisions of law that no service provider is entitled to charge for the goods more than what is prescribed on the goods as a maximum retail price. If the contention of the appellant is accepted then he could have charged any amount for the same quantity of water which was contained in the bottle on which maximum retail price was printed as Rs. 12.;


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