E-Paper
Eatery fined for serving hookah, not demarking smoking zones
UT administration has banned the serving of hookah and multiple FIRs under Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Several cases had already been registered against different eateries and clubs for violations of the order in the city
For failing to earmark smoking and no smoking zones, a restaurant in Sector 26, Chandigarh, was penalized by the district Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) on Thursday.
Disposing of a complaint filed by Deepak Kumar Yadav, of Industrial Area, Phase I, the district consumer commission prohibited Veda, a restaurant in sector 26, “from selling cigarettes/ hookahs in contravention to the provisions of the 2003 Act except the trade duly licensed and registered after meeting the requirements of the aforesaid Act.”
Besides this, the district CDRC directed Veda to pay ₹3,000 to Deepak as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment along with ₹2000 as costs of litigation.
No segregation of smoking and non smoking zone: complaint
In his complaint, Deepak Kumar Yadav, said on December 13, 2019, he and his friends visited Veda restaurant for food, but they felt suffocated as the other guests in the restaurant were openly smoking hookah. Deepak called the manager/staff and requested to shift his table to the non-smoking zone area of the restaurant, but he was told that the restaurant doesn’t have any separate space.
He said the Manager asked him to try flavored hookah and told that they are offering nicotine free flavoured ones. In his complaint, Deeepak further alleged that hookahs containing nicotine were openly being served to the youngsters/minors without even verifying their age.
Never used nicotine contents: restaurant
Veda, in its reply, submitted before the district consumer commission, denied the use of nicotine in hookahs, and averred that they use herbal products. The restaurant said that the packet of the flavour was also shown to the complainant (Deepak) at that time, but he started quarreling with the staff and demanded refund of the payment made by him and thereafter filed the present false consumer complaint.
‘Violated the Cigarettes, Tobacco Products Act’: district consumer commission
There was no non-smoking zone in the restaurant, the complainant has successfully proved on record the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Veda, for openly running the said trade without proving that they have obtained licence from the competent authority and they are required to be restrained from selling cigarettes/hookahs in contravention to the provisions of the 2003 Act, except the trade duly licensed and registered after meeting the requirements of the aforesaid Act,” the district consumer commission said.
The complainant, however, could not prove if nicotine-based hookah was served under garb of “flavoured” hookah.
Notably, the UT administration has banned the serving of hookah and multiple FIRs under Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Several cases had already been registered against different eateries and clubs for violations of the order in the city.
