Consumer court fines Kolkata restaurant for charging above MRP on beer, water

A district consumer disputes redressal commission in Kolkata on Monday levied a penalty of ₹1,500 on a restaurant for charging above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for a water bottle and a bottle of beer, as well as for levying a service charge on a customer [Nilanjana Chakraborty v Marco Polo Restaurant]..It also ordered the restaurant to refund the amount collected from the customer by way of service charges and by charging above MRP.Commission President Sukla Sengupta and member Reyazuddin Khan observed that it was the restaurant's duty to serve food without extra service charges and that it could not overcharge for packaged drinks.."The commission is of same view with the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that it is duty of the OP restaurant to serve the food to his customers and they cannot charge any service charge to that effect . The OP restaurant also cannot charge more price for the packaging drinking water bottle and hard drinks as mentioned in the petition of complaint filed by the complainant," the April 1 order stated. .The commission was hearing a complaint by a woman who submitted that the Marco Polo restaurant in Kolkata had charged her ₹30 for a water bottle and ₹260 for a beer bottle. Both prices exceeded the MRP, she highlighted. It was also alleged that a service charge of 10 percent was charged by the restaurant, which was illegal. The complainant added that her requests to speak with the manager or owner of the restaurant were denied by the employees.Therefore, she moved the consumer disputes redressal forum for relief. Before the commission, she asserted that there had been a deficiency in service by the restaurant as well as the commission of unfair trade practices. Therefore, she sought ₹40,000 as compensation (inclusive of litigation costs) from the restaurant..The restaurant acknowledged that the complainant had visited the restaurant, but pointed out that the complaint was filed after a six month delay.It added that the disputed amount was only ₹500 and that the bill produced by the complainant did not mention the name of the restaurant. Furthermore, the restaurant pointed out that the bill did not mention the brand of the water bottle or the beer bottle. It was unclear whether the complainant had cleared the bill, the restaurant submitted further. The restaurant maintained that there was no deficiency in service and that the case was filed for wrongful gain. Accordingly, it urged the commission to dismiss the complaint..The commission, however, eventually ruled in the complainant's favour. It noted that the cost of the water and beer bottles, along with the service charge imposed by the restaurant amounted to around ₹651.Further, it noted that the complainant's requests to speak with the manager or owner of the restaurant were denied by the employees.Therefore, the commission concluded that the restaurant's service was deficient and directed it to refund ₹651 to the complainant, along with an additional amount of ₹1,000 for the mental pain, agony, and harassment caused to the customer. Additionally, it ordered the restaurant to pay ₹500 in litigation charges to the complainant.Advocate Priyanka Chakraborty represented the complainant before the consumer court. .[Read Order]