BIKANERVALA FOODS PVT LTD vs Anand V Khatri

THE petitioner/OP has come in revision against concurrent findings of two Fora below. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

THE main grievance of the complainant is found in paragraph 3 of the complaint, which reads as under: "That the food court boy of the OP after giving Pani Poori kept the complainant waiting for 10 minutes and started giving the order of some one else, after 10 minutes when the complainant reminded him he gave one plate of Bhalla Paddi and again started giving the order of some one else, after 10 minutes when the complainant again reminded him he started making Bhel Puri and after mixing some material in one Pot again kept that aside, after waiting 10 minutes the complainant again reminded him he told the complainant that there are other customers also you are not alone, the complainant replied him that first you have to complete order of one person, then with heavy heart he started making Bhel Puri and kept it on counter without even the tray, spoon and paper napkin, when the complainant asked for the tray then only he gave the tray, when the complainant asked for the spoon than only he gave the spoon, when the complainant asked for the paper napkin then only he gave napkin in spite of the fact that it is their duty to give the food in a proper manner in the tray along with the spoon, paper napkin, etc. It seems that he was doing all these intentionally."

THERE was no specific denial of the allegations contained in paragraph 3, in the written statement filed by the petitioner/OP, which is at page 71 of the record. In parawise reply, the OP has simply denied paragraph 3 of the complaint and has mentioned the compass system followed by it. The averments contained in paragraph 3 of the complaint were reiterated in affidavit evidence of the complainant. In the affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the OP, again there was no specific denial of the allegations made in paragraph 3 of the complaint. Fora below have accepted the version of the complainant and have awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 as also a sum of Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the findings of the Fora below do not call for any interference either on merits of deficiency in service or on the award of compensation and cost. Accordingly, the Complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner in this revision as also the amount deposited in the State Commission.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant has urged before us that the Fora below had no jurisdiction to give direction to the effect: "OP will display the placard ''Table Service at the table by special request to the manager'' at a conspicuous place preferably by the side of displaying plate (Self Service only)".

INSOFAR as this direction is concerned, we are inclined to issue limited notice to the Respondent, returnable on 28.7.2010. The parties be informed that the matter may be disposed of finally at the admission stage on this aspect. Revision Petition dismissed.