A restaurant named Marco polo in Kolkata fined for violating consumer rights by charging prices higher than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on beer and bottled water. The Consumer Court ruled in favor of the complainant, stating that it is unlawful for the restaurant to charge more than the MRP for these items.
Kolkata: On Monday (1st April): The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kolkata imposed a penalty of Rs 1,500 on a restaurant named Marco Polo for violating regulations related to the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and service charges. The case involved the restaurant charging above the MRP for a water bottle and a bottle of beer, as well as levying an illegal service charge on a customer.
READ ALSO: Butter Chicken Was Invented by Moti Mahal or Daryaganj? Delhi High Court to Scrutinize It
The commission, led by President Sukla Sengupta and member Reyazuddin Khan, stated that it is the restaurant’s responsibility to serve food without additional service charges and that they cannot overcharge for packaged drinks. They agreed with the complainant’s advocate that the restaurant’s actions were in violation of these principles.
Advocate Priyanka Chakraborty represented the complainant in front of the consumer court.
“The commission agrees with the learned advocate representing the complainant that it is the responsibility of the restaurant to serve food to its customers without any additional service charge. Furthermore, the restaurant cannot increase the price of packaged drinking water bottles and alcoholic beverages, as stated in the complainant’s petition,” stated the April 1 order.
Background
The complaint was filed by a woman who claimed that Marco Polo restaurant had charged her Rs 30 for a water bottle and Rs 260 for a beer bottle, both of which exceeded the MRP. She also alleged that the restaurant imposed a 10% service charge, which is illegal. Moreover, her requests to speak with the manager or owner were denied by the restaurant’s employees, leading her to seek relief from the consumer disputes redressal forum.
During the proceedings, the complainant argued that the restaurant’s actions constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. She requested Rs 40,000 in compensation, including litigation costs, from the restaurant.
The restaurant acknowledged the complainant’s visit but pointed out a delay of six months in filing the complaint. They also claimed that the disputed amount was only Rs 500 and that the bill provided by the complainant did not mention the restaurant’s name. Moreover, the restaurant argued that the bill did not specify the brand of the water or beer bottle, and it was unclear whether the complainant had settled the bill.
The restaurant maintained that there was no deficiency in service and accused the complainant of filing the case for personal gain. They requested the commission dismiss the complaint.
READ ALSO: Butter Chicken Origin | Daryaganj Challenges Moti Mahal’s Defamatory Remarks in Delhi HC
However, the commission ruled in favor of the complainant. They determined that the total amount charged for the water and beer bottles, along with the service charge, was approximately Rs 651. Additionally, they noted that the complainant’s requests to speak with the manager or owner had been denied, indicating a deficiency in service.
As a result, the commission ordered the restaurant to refund Rs 651 to the complainant and pay an additional Rs 1,000 for the mental distress caused. Furthermore, they required the restaurant to cover Rs 500 in litigation charges.
CASE TITLE: Nilanjana Chakraborty v Marco Polo Restaurant
READ ORDER
