Smt Rekha V
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Trendz Slimming & Beauty Centre
...........Respondent(s)



ORDER


COMPLAINT NO. 222/2009 COMPLAINANT Smt. Rekha V. Ganachari, W/o. V.B. Ganachari, Aged about 50 years, Occupation : Professor in Commerce, S.J.R. College, Bangalore – 560 009. Residing at No. 26, 3rd Cross, Judicial Officers layout, RMV 2nd Stage, Sanjaynagar, Bangalore – 560 094. Advocate (V.B. Ganachari)


V/s.

OPPOSITE PARTY Trendz Slimming and Beauty Centre, No. 166, Lakshmi Nivas, Behind Sanjayanagar Police Station, 1st Cross Road, CIL Layout, Sanjaya Nagar, Bangalore – 560 094. By its Proprietor Smt. Veena. Advocate (G. Sukumaran)


O R D E R


This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.2,250/-, pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being lured away with the advertisement and the publication issued by the OP, who claims to be the experts in body slimming and weight reducing enrolled herself as a member at the OP center on 14.02.2008 and paid Rs.5,000/- for the weight reduction of 20 kgs. OP acknowledged the receipt of the same, made entry in the register concerned.
At the time of registration complainant was weighting about 85 kgs. Complainant is prompt in attending the classes and the sessions and followed all the procedures. She was able to reduce only 11 kgs weight up to December 2008, thereafter somehow there was no positive response. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to keep up their promise in reduction of the weight, went in futile. On the other hand OP tried to impose new rate plans from January 2009, which is not acceptable to the complainant. When complainant did not get the positive results as promised by the OP she felt unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.


2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant was irregular in following their instructions. As admitted by the complainant herself she had some fracture in the right hand, hence she could not follow the instructions given by the OP for the reduction of the weight. Actually complainant reduced her 11 kgs weight within a span of 10 months or so and her waist size was reduced from 44.5 inches to 36 inches, but still she is unable to maintain her food habits. She remained absent for more than 4 months due to the fracture, in the meantime if she gained the weight, for that OP cannot be blamed.

The other allegations made by the complainant are false, frivolous and baseless. Complainant is required to pay Rs.10,000/- for the reduction of 20 kgs, whereas she has hardly paid Rs.5,000/-. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.



3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the interrogatories were served and answered. Then the arguments were heard.



4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed?
Point No. 3 :- To what Order?


5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part
Point No.3:- As per final Order.


R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant enrolled herself with OP weight reduction slimming programme on 14.02.2008 with regard to reduction of weight of 20 kgs. OP promised 50% discount as a package for the said programme floated. Complainant paid Rs.5,000/- on 14.02.2008. OP acknowledged the same. It is further contended that complainant is able to reduce only 11 kgs by the end of December 2008, but she could not reduce 20 kgs as promised by OP. Hence she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.


7. As could be seen from the pleadings of the parties complainant suffered the fracture in her right hand in the month of May 2008, thereby she was prevented from attending the said programme and training nearly for about 4 months. Though complainant was regular in following all the instructions and carried away all the exercises, maintained the dieting, she could not get the expected result. When she insisted the OP to keep up their promise, OP came up with a new rates which starts from January 2009, which is not acceptable to the complainant. When her demand went in futile, for no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances she is advised to file this complaint.


8. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defece for defence sake. OP has not disputed the fact of receipt of the said Rs.5,000/- under the said scheme floated by them. Once when OP received the said amount they are expected to give the positive results as promised admittedly they failed. Under such circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.


9. Of course complainant has not claimed entire Rs.5,000/- as she has reduced 11 kgs of weight as against 20 kgs, she has restricted her claim to the 50% of the amount paid. We find there is some justification. The contention of the OP that complainant is expected to pay Rs.10,000/- and that complainant reduced her waist size appears to be baseless. View from any angle and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.2,000/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order.