Date of Kling: 19.04.2007
Date of Order: 18.10.2007
BEFORE THE | ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
dk UM SESHADRIPURAM
BANG ALORE-20 2
Dated: 18!" DAY OF OCTOBER 2007
PE
ESENT
Bajentri HLM, B.A, LL.B, President
SmtC.Y, Rajamma, B.Se., LL.B. PGDPR, Member
COMPLAINT NO. 856 OF 2007
Me, Amit Bansal
BYat, No65, 6" Cross,
16" Main, BTM Layout,
20! Stage,
BANGATORE560 076,
se Complainant,
AYs. Port Lounge,
Unit of PK Hospitality
“l
Departure Lounge,
Bangalore Airpori,
BANGALORE,
Serviees Lin
. Opposite Party.
ORDER
On 10.03.2007 the Complainant who was waiting in Bangalore
Airport departure lounge to catch a domestic flight bonght 200 ml
Bejots Apple packaged juice in the outlet of the opposite party He
was charged Rs.3(l'- for the product thongh the MRP of the same was
Rs.
When he asted fora bill it was given without mentioning
the mame of the item puichased. When the complainant refinsed toEE
receive the bill without the name of the item purchased, AL bil
printed on it, When the complainant asked exact tax constituting the
extra amount of Rs.20 above the MRP of Rs.10/ the same was also
refiised. Finally the complainant got the name of the juice purchased
‘written on the bill and got it stamped. The shop in question is neither
a Hotel nor a Restaurant, but a shop in the premis
8 of Bangalore
airport andl the ambience is provided tor by the airport authorities for
which other faxes are levied om the tickets. Therefore there is: no
reason for the shop to charge any amount over an
jove the MRP on
the packaged goods. Hence this complaint for a direction to the
opposite party to refi
of Bs 20/- charged on the
product over and above the MRP, to pay the eosts of Fitigation and
other expenses, and compensation of Rs 5,000
2. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under:
The complaint is thoroughly misconceived, untenable,
haseless, false and probably filed at the instanee of the competitors of
the opposite party and therefore unsustainable, The complaint is fled
nish the name and reputation of the opposite party andl with a
view f0 extort ill
sgal gratification. ‘The opposite party are running a
Branded Fast Food Tounge in the security: hold of the Bangalore
Airport and providing Lounge Services at the said location with allthe amenities and standards equivalent to 9 Starred Hotel \The
Sandatd of service required to the Airport Authority of India which ~~
has granted license to the opposite party to conduct the Tounge
usiness is that equivalent to the service provided in a Starred Hotel
They are paying License Fees of about Rs.2,50,000 per month to the
Airport Authority of India tor the permission to conduet the Lounge
business of Branded Fast Food in Bangalore Airport. ‘They are not
involved in retail business as may be conducted by a grocery shop or
retail tradesman. but provide services as is expected of'any Starred
Hotel or Resta
rant “The thed products served at the lounge is
accompanied by all amenities and services such as glass, napkin,
straw and services akin to that of a waiter ina Restaurant. They are
Hot anvare as to what was selnally ordered by the enmiplainant as they
are not provided with the copy of the sale bill. ‘The food items are
served hy waiter
and the ambience, hygiene and cleantiness
Maintained ts that required of any Started Hoel, Therefore branding
the opposite party as a ‘Trader’ is deliberately mislending and false
The complainant has admitted that what was tendered was service
and not a trade-as is understood in normal parlanee, ‘There is no over
charging a alleged or thot the opposite parties are traders or that they
have sold packaged commodity to the complainant, There ix no
clement of rampant overcharging or iunsiempilons exploitation as