“Royal Dhaba”, Chandigarh, Held Liable For Not Refunding Excess Amount Collected.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, headed by Mr. Pawanjit Singh and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur, allowed a consumer complaint. They held a local eatery in Chandigarh, known as the "Royal Dhaba," accountable for charging an astonishing ten times more than the actual bill. The complainant had a billing dispute with the Dhaba. Instead of a reasonable Rs. 465/-,...
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, headed by Mr. Pawanjit Singh and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur, allowed a consumer complaint. They held a local eatery in Chandigarh, known as the "Royal Dhaba," accountable for charging an astonishing ten times more than the actual bill.
The complainant had a billing dispute with the Dhaba. Instead of a reasonable Rs. 465/-, he was charged Rs. 4,650/-. Despite repeated requests for a refund of the excess amount, the Dhaba refused to refund the excess amount. As a result, the Commission held that the restaurant's actions amounted to both a service deficiency and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the "Royal Dhaba" (Opposite Party) was directed to refund ₹4,185/-, along with interest.
The consumer complaint was filed by one Mr. Parshant Sethi who visited the "Royal Dhaba" (Opposite Party) with his friends on 19 January 2022. He ordered food worth ₹465/- and paid with his debit card. However, the Dhaba charged him ₹4,650/- and didn't refund the extra ₹4,185/- despite his repeated requests. Mr. Sethi filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. However, the Dhaba did not respond to the complaint, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.
Noting that the evidence, including invoices, confirmed the overcharge, the Chandigarh District Commission allowed Mr. Sethi's complaint in part, directing the dhaba to refund ₹4,185/- with 9% annual interest from the payment date. The eatery was further ordered to compensate the complainant with ₹3,000/- for mental distress, and pay ₹3,000/- as litigation costs. The order was directed to be complied within 30 days, or the "Royal Dhaba" would be liable to pay additional interest charges.
Case Title: Prashant Sethi vs GAZB 26 Royal Dhaba
Counsel for the Complainant: Sh. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party: Ex-Parte