Coffee house told to pay compensation for misleading customer
The state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has directed a city-based coffee shop to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to a customer for misleading by selling an in-house sandwich in the wrapper of another companychandigarh Updated: Sep 13, 2014 15:02 IST
The state consumer disputes redressal commission, Chandigarh, has directed a city-based coffee shop to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to a customer for misleading by selling an in-house sandwich in the wrapper of another company.The consumer forum on September 5 also directed the Sector 11-based Barista Coffee (Lavazza), Barista Coffee, New Delhi, and Lavazza Coffee, New Delhi, to pay Rs 4,000 as cost of litigation to Phagwara resident Anu Bhandari.
“There was deficiency in rendering service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of Barista Coffee (Lavazza), Barista Coffee Company Limited, New Delhi, and Lavazza Coffee Company, New Delhi, by wrapping the sandwich, freshly prepared in their restaurant, in Cake Tree wrapper to which it did not belong. Thus, the complainant was misled on account of the wrapper,” ruled the consumer commission.
The consumer forum disposed of an appeal filed by Barista Coffee challenging the order of the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh.
“The compensation amount of Rs 15,000 and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation need to be reduced withthe limited deficiency of the appellants,” ruled the consumer commission.
Anu Bhandari, a resident of Phagwara, on August 7, 2013, visited Barista Coffee in Sector 11, Chandigarh, where she purchased two cups of coffee and a vegetable sandwich. She alleged that the cover of the sandwich costing Rs 75 was “misbranded”.
She said the details of the manufacturer were missing from the wrapper. She alleged that the product cover neither contained any information regarding the expiry date of the product nor the days within which the product was to expire.
Denying the allegations, Barista Coffee said the products being sold by them were not pre-packaged.
It said their business was akin to a confectionary shop, selling fast food items and no pre-packaged products were sold to the customer. It was further stated that the products were prepared/processed only after obtaining order from the customers and were served for immediate consumption.
Only on specific request of the customer, products were given for takeaway.It was further stated that a declaration pertaining to ‘use by date’ was also provided on the label of the sandwich and, therefore, no offence/violation was committed by them.