Overcharging: Consumer forum members not on same page

Tribune News Service

Amritsar, June 17

The district consumer disputes redressal forum has referred a complaint regarding overcharging (above MRP) by a bakery to the state commission after a one of its members submitted a dissenting note.

The president, in his judgement, had asked the bakery to refund Rs 20 charged in excess from a local resident for a mineral water bottle and along with Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 as litigation expenses.

However, the dissenting member of the forum, in her note, stated that the case of the opposite party was squarely covered under the law titled as the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India vs Union of India vide which there is no prohibition on sale of packaged mineral water in hotels at prices above the MRP. The opposite party is not at fault by charging above the MRP, she stated.

Complainant Gurpreet Singh of Guru Amar Dass Colony had filed a case against Blue Bakers, stating that he had purchased one bottle of mineral water and one pastry, but he was charged Rs 40 for the mineral water bottle which had an MRP of Rs 20.

The opposite party, in its reply, stated that charging over the MRP during the service of customers in hotels and restaurants does not violate any of the provisions of the Standards of Weighs and Measures Act. The reply further stated that a customer does not enter a hotel or a restaurant to make a simple purchase of these commodities. The reply further stated that a client would order nothing beyond a bottle of water or a beverage, but his direct purpose in doing so would clearly travel to enjoying the ambience available therein.

The consumer forum president, in his note, stated that the case of opposite party was not covered under the above argument because the opposite party was only a bakery which sold food and other items to customers and not a restaurant or hotel as the opposite party had neither produced any licence from the competent authority to prove that the opposite party was running a restaurant, nor produced any menu card like other restaurants or hotels which could establish that the opposite party was also providing services to its customers like other restaurants.

The president, after the dissent note by the member, stated that any decision could be taken by the majority members of the forum and as there were only two of them at the district forum, the case was referred to the state commission for further action.

The issue

• The district consumer disputes redressal forum receives a complaint regarding overcharging for a water bottle by a bakery. 
• Forum president bats for refund of the overcharged amount besides Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 2,000 as litigation expenses but another member dissents.
• The forum decides to transfer the case to the state commission.