Hotel charges man Rs 20 extra on water bottles, ordered to pay Rs 12,020

Ashish Kumar Kothari visited Hotel The Grand Chittor, Chittorgarh, on January 31, 2022, and ordered food along with two bottles of mineral water. The hotel generated a bill of Rs 2,199 for the meal, which included charges for the two water bottles purchased by the consumer.

Upon examining the bill, Kothari noticed that each bottle carried an MRP of Rs 20 but had been billed at Rs 30. Kothari claimed that he immediately objected to the excess charge and requested that the amount be refunded to him. According to the complaint, the hotel staff refused to return the excess amount despite being informed that the charge exceeded the printed MRP. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Kothari subsequently approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chittorgarh.

District commission’s decision

On June 26, 2024, the district commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the hotel to refund the excess amount of Rs 20. The commission also awarded litigation costs of Rs 1,100 but declined to grant any compensation for mental agony. Unsatisfied with the limited relief, Kothari challenged the order before the Rajasthan State Consumer Commission. He argued that the district commission failed to adequately compensate him for the inconvenience and harassment caused by the hotel’s conduct.

Hotel’s defence

The hotel denied any deficiency in service and contended that customers visited the establishment not only for food but also for its ambience and facilities. It submitted that the property offered several amenities and that guests paid for the overall experience available at the hotel. The hotel further maintained that branded mineral water had been supplied and sought dismissal of the complaint.

Appeal proceedings

Before the state commission, Kothari argued that the hotel had charged one-and-a-half times the MRP for the water bottles sold to him. He also submitted that pursuing consumer litigation involves expenditure of time, effort and resources beyond mere filing expenses. According to him, the district commission erred in not awarding compensation for the mental harassment resulting from the unlawful charge.

The hotel, on the other hand, argued that an excess charge of Rs 20 could not reasonably be treated as causing mental agony. It further contended that the complainant had not suffered any substantial loss warranting enhancement of compensation.

Findings of the state commission

• The state commission noted that the hotel had not challenged the finding of deficiency in service recorded by the district commission.
• As a result, the finding that the consumer had been wrongly overcharged had attained finality.
• Rejecting the hotel’s argument on mental agony, the commission held that the amount involved was not the determining factor.
• It observed that a consumer can suffer distress when money is collected from him in an unlawful manner, regardless of the amount involved.
• The commission also found that the litigation costs awarded by the district commission were inadequate in the circumstances of the case.

Final order

Allowing the appeal in part, the state commission substantially enhanced the compensation awarded to the consumer. The hotel was directed to continue refunding the excess amount of Rs 20 collected from Kothari. In addition, the commission awarded Rs 7,000 as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. The litigation costs were also increased from Rs 1,100 to Rs 5,000. Accordingly, the total amount payable by the hotel rose to Rs 12,020.

The commission directed that the payment be made within two months from the date of the judgment. In the event of default, the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum until realization.

Significance

The ruling reinforces the principle that consumer rights are not measured by the value of the loss alone. By awarding substantial compensation for a Rs 20 overcharge, the commission emphasized that businesses cannot disregard legal obligations merely because the amount involved is small. The decision serves as a reminder that charging above the printed MRP can attract consumer liability and monetary consequences far exceeding the amount unlawfully collected.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact consumer helpline in their respective states (Rajasthan helpline:1800-180-6030) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

(Written by Aparajita Prasad, intern at The Indian Express)