Restaurant Liable For Levying Service Charge Without Consumer's Consent; Lawyer Awarded ₹15,000 Compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, comprising Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna (Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Maya Inns Pvt. Ltd., holding that the restaurant had indulged in an unfair trade practice by levying service charges without obtaining the consumer's consent. The Commission directed the restaurant to refund the service charges collected from the complainant and pay compensation and litigation costs, while rejecting the allegations regarding misbehavior by staff, substandard food quality, and wrongful charging of buffet fees for a minor child due to lack of evidence.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Sanjeev Duggal, a practicing advocate, visited the restaurant of Maya Inns Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar, on 08.11.2023 along with his family comprising three adults and one minor daughter for a buffet dinner. According to the complainant, despite informing the restaurant staff about the presence of a minor child, the restaurant charged buffet charges for four adults. The complainant also purchased liquor and was issued two separate bills, in which service charges amounting to ₹151.53 were levied at the rate of 3%.
The complainant alleged that when he objected to the levy of service charges and the charging of buffet fees for the minor child, the restaurant staff failed to address his grievance and allegedly misbehaved with him. Aggrieved by the compulsory levy of service charges and alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, seeking refund of the service charges along with compensation and litigation costs.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties
The opposite parties denied all allegations of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and misbehavior. They contended that the amount was charged as "staff contribution/service charge" in accordance with their policy and that the same was displayed on the menu card. They further stated that such charges could be waived if a customer objected to them and claimed that the complainant never raised any objection at the relevant time. While denying liability, the opposite parties expressed their willingness to refund the service charge amount of ₹151.53.
Observations and Decision
The Commission observed that the restaurant had admittedly levied service charges of ₹151.53 from the complainant. It noted that although the opposite parties claimed the amount was charged as "staff contribution" in accordance with their policy, the bills clearly described the amount as "service charges." The Commission further found that there was no evidence to show that the complainant had been informed in a clear and unambiguous manner about the mandatory levy of such charges or that he had consented to their payment.
The Commission held that charging service charges without obtaining the consumer's consent constituted an unfair trade practice. However, it found no sufficient evidence to support the complainant's allegations regarding misbehavior by the restaurant staff, substandard quality of food, or the claim that buffet charges were wrongly levied for a minor child.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund ₹151.53 collected as service charges, along with compensation and litigation expenses of ₹15,000 for the mental harassment caused to the complainant. The Commission ordered compliance within 45 days from the receipt of the order.
Case Title: Sanjeev Duggal v. Maya Inns Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: CC/469/2023