BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1412/2019
|
Kamat Hotel,
A Proprietory Concern of :
Sri L.K. Kamat,
Aged about 67 years,
S/o Late Sri R.P. Kamat,
No.40, S.C. Road,
Opp. Kapali Theatre,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore 560 009.
(By Sri S. Ganesh Shenoy)
|
……Appellant/s
|
V/s
|
Sri K.M. Rajanna,
S/o K.S. Munishamappa,
Aged about 57 years,
Advocate, No.19/1,
3rd Floor, 6th Main Road,
Gandhinagar,
Bangalore 560 009.
|
…Respondent/s
|
ORDER
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.15.07.2019 passed in CC.No.1781/2018 on the file of 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore which directed the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;
The complainant along with his colleague advocate visited the Opposite Party hotel for taking refreshment and ordered Dosa and Jamoon. The supplier of the Opposite Party hotel supplied the same while eating Jamoon the complainant noticed dead cockroach in the Jamoon bowl. Immediately, they informed to the supplier and video and photographs are also taken, but, the supplier has behaved rudely with the complainant, abused in foul language, assaulted the complainant and forcibly tried to snatch the mobile phone from the complainant who recorded the scene. Immediately, the complainant gave a police complaint on 15.09.2016 and police have registered FIR. The Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 have not maintained the hotel in good condition. They supplied the adulterated food for consumption which is hazardous to the health of the complainant for which the complainant issued a legal notice on 24.09.2018 calling upon them to compensate for the deficiency in service in supplying adulterated/poisonous food. The Opposite Party refused to receive the notice, ultimately, the complainant filed a complaint. After issuance of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 placed exparte. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint directed the Opposite Parties to pay the abovesaid amount.
3. Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission, the appellant/Opposite Party is in appeal.
4. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that they have no knowledge about the filing of the complaint before the District Commission and the notice was not served against them. The suppliers of the hotel are not acted as alleged by the complainant and there is no ground for awarding such a huge compensation, hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. Further argued that during the relevant date of incident, the Manager Mr.Sudhakar Shetty was not present and also not in service since 21.11.2017, the complainant had filed this complaint after a lapse of two years from the cause of action. In this ground also, the order passed
Back
