##PAGE1##

1

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.469 of 2023

Date of Instt. 24.11.2023

Date of Decision: 04.06.2026

Sanjeev Duggal Advocate aged about 50 years son of Sh. Ramesh

Duggal resident of Main Bazar, Hadiabad, Phagwara.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Maya Inss Pvt. Ltd. EH-178, Civil Lines, Jalandhar. through its

Manager.

2. The Managing Director/Director Maya Inss Pvt. Ltd. EH-178,

Civil Lines, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)

Present: Sh. Sanjeev Duggal, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. I.S. Bhatia, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1. The complainant, Sanjeev Duggal, is a practicing advocate

at Jalandhar. On 08.11.2023, he visited the restaurant of the opposite

parties along with his family comprising three adults and one minor

daughter for buffet dinner. According to the complainant, he

specifically informed the restaurant staff that there were three adults

and one minor child, but the OPs charged buffet charges for four adults.

The complainant further purchased liquor and was issued Bill Nos.

RT/205053/23-24 and RT/205052/23-24 dated 08.11.2023. In the said

bills, service charges amounting to Rs.128.13 and Rs.23.40

respectively, totaling Rs.151.53, were levied at the rate of 3%. The

2

complainant alleged that when he objected to the charging of service

charges and the charging of buffet charges for the minor child, the staff

of the opposite parties misbehaved with him and failed to address his

grievance. He also alleged that the quality of certain food items,

particularly fish, was not satisfactory. Claiming deficiency in service,

unfair trade practice, mental agony, harassment and humiliation, he

sought refund of the service charges along with compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses.

2. The opposite parties contested the complaint and denied all

allegations of misbehavior, deficiency in service and unfair trade

practice. They pleaded that the complaint was misconceived and filed

with mala fide intentions. The opposite parties stated that the amount

charged in the bills was shown as staff contribution/service charge, that

the same was prominently displayed on the menu card, and that it was

their policy to waive such charge if any customer objected to it. They

asserted that the complainant never raised any objection at the relevant

time. The opposite parties further relied upon the interim orders passed

by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in proceedings concerning service

charges/staff contribution charged by hotels and restaurants. While

denying liability, they expressed willingness to refund the total amount

of Rs.151.53 charged in the two bills.

3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties

have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. It is admitted fact that the complainant visited the

Restaurant of OP for availing buffet service on 08.11.2023. The

3

complainant has alleged the deficiency of service by the OP alleging

that the complainant ordered food for himself and three other his family

members including minor and also ordered liquor from the OP vide two

different bills and the OP charged Rs.128.13 and Rs.23.40 as service

charges @ 3% in both the bills. The complainant has proved on record

the copy of the bills Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.

7. The OP on the other hand has denied that the complainant

ordered food for minor also rather it has been alleged that the

complainant availed buffet service for four persons. The OP has alleged

that the bills were paid by the complainant without any objection by

him. The OP has also produced on record the Menu Card Ex.OP-2. The

OP has alleged that the complainant never approached the OP for

waiving of the service c