Kasaragod District Commission Holds Pizza Hut Liable For Charging Excessively For Lime Water And Failure To Provide A.C. Services
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (Kerala) bench comprising Krishnan K (President) and Beena KG (Member) held Pizza Hut liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to provide air conditioning services and charging Rs. 99/- for one glass of lime water, whereas the prevailing standard rate was Rs. 10/-. The bench directed Pizza Hut...
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (Kerala) bench comprising Krishnan K (President) and Beena KG (Member) held Pizza Hut liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to provide air conditioning services and charging Rs. 99/- for one glass of lime water, whereas the prevailing standard rate was Rs. 10/-. The bench directed Pizza Hut to refund the excess amount and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
Mrs. Sharath Kumar (“Complainant”) and his wife visited Pizza Hut in Payyannur. After ordering a pizza, the Complainant requested lime water. Even though as per the common practice, the bill has to be paid earlier, the lady cashier told the Complainant that he could pay after consuming the lime water. Therefore, a price list was not shown. The lime water provided to the Complainant was ordinary, yet he was charged excessively at Rs. 99/- per glass. He also witnessed staff drinking from the jug which directly raised concerns about hygiene standards in the restaurant. The A.C. was also not working. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kasaragod (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Pizza Hut.
In response, Pizza Hut argued that targeting Pizza Hut solely by its brand name was untenable. Furthermore, it claimed that the jurisdiction of the District Commission didn't apply to the Pizza Hut branch in question. It asserted that there was standardized pricing across their outlets. It maintained that the Complainant, having reviewed the price list before consumption, cannot challenge the agreed-upon price post-consumption. Additionally, it argued that the cost of lime water includes not just ingredients but also restaurant services, AC facilities, and staff service. It denied any unfair trade practices or negligence, arguing against the necessity of compensation.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that such pricing was significantly higher compared to the prevailing standard rate of Rs. 10/- per glass throughout Kerala, which is well-known to the general public.
Pizza Hut attempted to justify the high pricing by citing factors beyond the cost of ingredients, such as the overall service provided by the restaurant, including air conditioning and staff service. However, upon reviewing the evidence presented, including the Complainant's testimony regarding the malfunctioning air conditioning and the absence of a menu board displaying prices, the District Commission found these arguments unpersuasive. It held that Pizza Hut''s failure to provide adequate service, coupled with the unfair trade practice of overcharging for lime water, amounted to a deficiency of service.
While acknowledging the Complainant's entitlement to a refund for the excess amount charged, the District Commission directed Pizza Hut to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with costs amounting to Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant.