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 toEE 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 allthe 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