{"id":260274,"date":"2022-01-19T09:00:24","date_gmt":"2022-01-19T03:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=260274"},"modified":"2022-01-18T18:32:27","modified_gmt":"2022-01-18T13:02:27","slug":"consumer-cannot-be-forced-to-pay-service-charge-in-a-restaurant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/19\/consumer-cannot-be-forced-to-pay-service-charge-in-a-restaurant\/","title":{"rendered":"Consumer cannot be forced to pay \u201cservice charge\u201d in a restaurant: Consumer Forum finds conduct of restaurant contrary to principles of Consumer Protection Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit-II(Central): While holding against the service charge, charged by a restaurant, <\/strong>Coram of Swapan Kumar Mahanty (President) and Ashoke Kumar Ganguly (Member) directed for return of the amount charged as \u201cservice charge\u201d along with compensation.<\/p>\n

What led to the filing of the present complaint?<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The complainant and his friends went OP-1\/Restaurant and found that the restaurant food was of poor quality and the behaviour of the boys was outlandish.<\/p>\n

OP-1 issued a bill amounting to Rs 3,563 including 10% service charges though the complainant insisted on not including 10% service charge over the invoiced amount, since service charge is not mandatory, and it is upto the consumer either to pay or refute the same.<\/p>\n

To avoid embarrassment, the complainant was compelled to pay the said amount.<\/p>\n

In consequence to the above said, complainant, vide a legal notice requested the OP-1 to tender their apology in the appropriate form and further asked to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 25,000 within 15 days.<\/p>\n

Since the notice remained unattended, the complainant filed the present complaint.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Discussion<\/span><\/h4>\n

Consumer Forum found the conduct of OP-1 as illegal, malafide and contrary to the principles of law as stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act and the OP-1 deliberately failed to ameliorate the grievance of the complainant.<\/p>\n

Coram held that OP-1 had committed unfair trade practice towards the complainant.<\/p>\n

The OPs must have been aware of the guidelines of Fair Trade Practice<\/a> related to changing of service charge from the consumers by hotels\/restaurant issued by Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, inter alia, stipulating that service charge on hotel and restaurant bill is \u201ctotally voluntarily\u201d and not mandatory.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Forum\u2019s Directions<\/span><\/h4>\n
    \n
  • OP-1 to refund Rs 308 as service charge over the invoiced amount of Rs 3,085.<\/li>\n
  • OP-1 to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 for mental agony and harassment to the complainant.<\/li>\n
  • Lastly, OP-1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs 3,000 as litigation cost.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    In view of the above, the complaint was disposed off. [Arkadeep Sarkar v. Yauatcha, Kolkata; Complaint Case No. CC\/391\/2019, decided on 7-1-2022]<\/p>\n

    \n

    Advocates before the Forum:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    For the Complainant:<\/span> Sunil Kumar Gupta, Advocate for Complainant 1<\/p>\n

    \n

    Also Read:<\/span><\/h4>\n

    Fair Trade Practices | Service charge despite GST<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n