HomeYogesh R. v. Talk of the Town & Ors.

Yogesh R. v. Talk of the Town & Ors.

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU 

1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560027. 

PRESENT:- 

Hon’ble Sri Ramachandra M.S., B.A., LL.B., President 

Smt. Nandini H Kumbhar, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., Member 

Smt. Savitha Airani, B.A.L., LL.M., Member 

ORDER 
C.C.No.341/2024 
Order dated this the 22nd day of August 2025 

Sri Yogesh.R., 

S/o Ramanjaneya.D., 

Aged about 40 years, 

Grand Magestic Mall, 

No.84, 3rd floor, Opp. To Gubbi 

Veeranna Rangamandira, 12th 

cross, Gandhinagar, 

Bengaluru-560009                                                                   COMPLAINANT 

(Sri Renugopal.K, Adv.) 

-v/s- 

1. Talk of the Town, 

    Bar and Restaurant, 

    2nd Main road, Gandhinagar, 
    Bengaluru-560001 
    Rep. by its Proprietor 

(Sri Ramesh Govindaraj Adv.) 

  1. Gandhinagar Donne Biriyani, 
    Opp. To Amudham Cafe, 
    Gandhinagar, 
    Bengaluru-560001 

(Sri Mohan Kumar.H.G., Adv.) 

  1. M/s Hindustan Co Co Cola 
    Beverages Pvt. Ltd., 

Plot No.32, Bidadi Industrial 
Area, 1st phase, Survey 
No.Parts of 1-4, 7&9, 
Balaveeranahalli, Bidadi hobli, 
Ramanagar Tq. & Dist. 
Bengaluru Rural-562109 
Rep. by its Director 
Codagu Appaji. 
(Sri Chaluvaraja.G.V., Adv.)                                     OPPOSITE PARTIES 

ORDER 

SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI, MEMBER 

  1. This complaint is filed by the complainant under Sec. 35 of C.P. Act 2019 against the OPs for deficiency of service, seeking direction to OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for being suffered mentally and physically for the deficient service and illegal trade practice, to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/- as cost of litigation and such other reliefs. 
  1. The brief facts of the case is as follows: 

The complainant submits that on 28.08.2024, the complainant visited OP-1 Bar & Restaurant and purchased 01 It. mineral water namely “Kinley Mineral water” from OP-1 and price mentioned on the bottle by OP-3 is Rs.30/-. The complainant submits that on the same day the complainant purchase one liter mineral water of “Kinley Mineral water” from OP-2 and the OP-2 sold the same for Rs.20/- including tax under bill dt.28.08.2024 in bill No.000283, which is also manufactured by OP-3. The complainant submits that the sub-dealers of OP-3 are selling the same product for different rates of huge margins and the OP-1 sells the said product without any specifications such as cost, tax on product, vat or service tax or luxury tax. The complainant submits that the OP-3 is engaged in illegal/unfair trade practice and they are not showing any accountable to the government or consumer and the difference amount which is collecting by the OP-1 and remitting to the OP-3 which is highly and illegal and unfair trade practice and it is nothing but daylight robbery by looting the wealth and health of people by escalating the natural resources of State to the benefit of OP-3. The complainant submit that due to illegal trade practice of OP-1 & 3, the complainant has undergone loss of Rs.10/- from unfair trade practice of OP-1 & 3. Aggrieved by the act of the OPs, the complainant initiated present complaint seeking for relief as prayed in the complaint. 

  1. On issuance of notice from this commission, and notice was duly served to OP-1, 2 &3. OP-1 & 3 represented by counsels filed written version along with supporting documents. The OP-2, even though appeared through counsel, but not chosen to file version well within 45 days and hence, version of OP-2 is taken as not filed. 
  1. In order to prove the case of the complainant, filed his chief examination affidavit along with the documents and got marked documents as CI & C2. The OP-1 &3 have also filed chief examination affidavits. 
  1. Heard arguments and matter is reserved for orders. 
  1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following points will do arise for our consideration:- 
  1. Whether the complainant proves Deficiency in Service on the Part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and there by prove that the complainants are entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint? 
  1. What Order? 
  1. Our answers to the above points are as follows: 

POINT NO. 1:- Negative. 

POINT NO.2:- As per the final order 

REASONS 

  1. POINT NO.l: On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is the specific case that the complainant on 28.08.2024 visit the OP hotel i.e. Talk of the Town, Bar & Restaurant and purchased one “Kinley Mineral Water” for a sum of Rs.30/- and on the same day complainant purchased from OP-2 shop same company water bottle “Kinley Mineral Water” for a sum of Rs.20/- including tax. The allegations of the complainant is that same product and same quantity of same company selling by two sub-dealers of OP-3 in two different rates of huge margins without any specifications such as Tax, Vat, Service Tax etc. The OP-1 &3 are engaged in illegal & unfair trade practice. Further, the complainant submitted that, he undergone loss of Rs.10/- from the unfair trade practice of OP-1&3. For the allegations of the complainant OP-1 contended in its version is that, complainant visited OP-1 restaurant and occupied a table of A/c room and consumes water while enjoying music being played in their restaurant. The OP-1 waiter served the water bottle to complainant and the complainant has enjoyed the service, ambience and facilities of OP-1, so complainant has been charged for the same. Further contended that different sub- dealers have giving different services on the basis of facilities and services they are charging. Hence, there was a difference in charging on products. 
  1. The OP-3 contended in its version that, the OP-3 is not into the business of direct selling to any customers and hence complainant is not a consumer to this OP-3. There is no privity of contract and relationship with the complainant regarding sale of above said product. 
  1. On perusal of affidavit evidence and documents placed on record in support of their pleadings, the commission found that, the annexure documents which is produced by the complainant is not supporting his case. Only two bills which are placed on record by the complainant. In that bills there was no particulars of the names of OP-1 &3. Simply mentioned “Mineral Water” and amount of the mineral water. Both the learned counsels of OP-1 &3 contended that the complainant had visited OP-1 hotel to have a pleasant and enjoy the services provided and ambiences available therein.  
  1. In support of the contentions of OP-1&3, counsels relied on the Judgment reported UOI V/s Hindustan Development Corporation, AIR, 1994 SC 988, pricing the service sectors, especially restaurants includes both products and service elements. Further, when a consumer voluntarily avails such services and pays. Accordingly, no deficiency or unfair trade practice can be attributed (Kishore Lai V/s ESI Crop. (2007) 4 SCC 579), Hotel Seaking V/s Subhajit Bhattacharya, NCDRC 2012, Federation of Hotel and Restaurants Association of India V/s Union of India, 2006 (3) CPJ 161, has also held that serving bottle water above MRP within a restaurant is permissible as part of composite service and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Associated Hotels & Northern India Caterers which leave no room for arguments that supply or service of eatables and drinks in hotels and restaurants does partake of the nature of a “sale” in common legal parlance. Hence, when a person goes to a hotel or restaurant and while he is there order and consumes such commodities, this does not fall within the definition of Consumption as contained in Section-2(d) of C.P. Act, 2019. In view of the above cited judgement and facts involves in the case are same. 
  1. In view of the above discussion and ratio laid down by the Appellate Authority, the commission comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the contention of complainant that the act of OP-1&3 amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, complaint deserves to be dismissed for the above said reasons. The complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 &3. Accordingly, we answer Point No. 1 in Negative. 
  1. POINT No.2:- On the basis of the reasons assigned while discussing the Point No.l, we proceed to pass the following. 

ORDER 

  1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs. 
  1. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 22nd August 2025) 

(RAMACHANDRA M.S)  
PRESIDENT 

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                                   (SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI) 

MEMBER                                                        MEMBER