DCDRC Holds Kolkata’s Marco Polo Restaurant Liable For Charging Above MRP On Water And Beer
Directs it to refund the excess amount and compensate the complainant
The Central Kolkata, West Bengal bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has held Marco Polo Restaurant, Park Street, liable for charging more than the MRP for packaged water and a 650 ml bottle of Kingfisher beer.
The bench comprising Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) stated that the restaurant had a duty to serve the customers without additional service charges.
The complainant visited the Marco Polo Restaurant with relatives for dinner. They ordered starters and packaged water, followed by main courses and various drinks, including a 650 ml bottle of Kingfisher beer.
On receiving the bill, the complainant was shocked to find overcharges on the water and beer, exceeding the MRP. Additionally, the restaurant applied a 5 percent Goods and Services Tax (GST) and a 10 percent service charge, to which the complainant objected.
However, the restaurant staff ignored her requests. Left with no choice, the complainant settled the Rs. 4,112 bill in cash. Aggrieved by it, she filed a consumer complaint with the DCDRC.
The restaurant argued that the complaint was misconceived. While acknowledging that the complainant visited for dinner with her relatives, it contested the authenticity of the bill’s photocopy. It emphasized the six-month delay in filing the complaint and pointed out the absence of the restaurant’s name on the bill, the lack of evidence regarding the items consumed, and who paid the bill.
The DCDRC noted that the restaurant charged Rs.30 for a packaged drinking bottle and Rs.260 for the beer – both exceeded the MRP. The GST and service charges were also levied illegally. It held that the excess charges, amounting to Rs.651 were unjustifiable. The bench observed that when the complainant requested to speak with the manager or owner regarding the inflated bill, her request was denied, and she was forced to pay the inflated bill.
The District Commission held that the restaurant’s behavior constituted a deficiency in service, as it failed to address the complainant’s concerns.
Thus, the judges directed the restaurant to refund Rs.651 (excess billing amount) and pay her compensation of Rs.1,000 and Rs.500 for litigation costs.