BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    17^th DAY OF JUNE 2019

O R D E R

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards actual losses and compensation/damages, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- being compensation for the deficiency in service committed and causing delayed fin for the treatment and to award such other reliefs.

2.      The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:

The complainant submits that, with a view to remove unwanted hair had approached the OP for a laser hair removal.  OP had agreed for the laser hair removal of the complainant in the face, in 10 sittings for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.  On 26.10.2013 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- through credit card.  That complainant had visited the office of OP on 16.07.2013, 29.09.2013, 25.10.2013 and 05.12.2013 but to her shock the OP has never ever made a laser treatment, instead they were doing i.e., facial, steam and massage and send her back.  That when she came to know that the OP has not got any machines/tools for doing laser treatment.  When same was asked with the OP, they told that the treatment would be started only when the machines/tools are bought.  Further complainant submits that, when there was an appointment she used to go to OP office for the laser treatment by taking a leave from her job but every time the treatment was not done.  The delay in not doing the treatment put the complainant into grave mental agony, hardship and inconvenience.  That in terms and condition of the OP, which is incorporated in the Client Programme Record (S) itself, the complainant was entitled to compensation.  This came as a rude shock to the complainant.  When the OP told that to wait till the machine are brought, moreover the complainant is not interested in waiting for the treatment and now she is not interested in getting her treatment the complainant reserving her rights to initiate appropriate proceedings.  As the OP are guilty of gross deficiency of service in not merely causing delay in effecting treatment.  Hence this complaint.

3.      After issuance of notice, OP did appear and filed version denying the contents of the complaint stating that, there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint.  Any how the OP has admitted that the complainant in view to remove unwanted hair and approached OP for laser hair removal treatment and it has agreed for laser hair removal on the complainant face in 10 sitting for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.  On 26.10.2013 the complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- through credit card.  Further denied in respect of non availability of the machine as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant has taken treatment for 4 to 5 sittings and she cannot come with a new fanciful and false story of non-presence of machine.  According to the case of the OP the claim of the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation as the same could be from client program record that the complainant last attended sessions on 05.12.2013 and the complaint is filed after the expiry  of three years, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.  Further submits that, the complaint is not maintainable as the corporate office of Ego-wellness which is situated in Mumbai/Pune has not been arrayed as party to the complaint.  Hence on these grounds and other grounds OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the complainant submitted her affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  One Mahesh Kalayarril, Managing Director of OP Company submitted evidence by way of affidavit.  Complainant produced certain documents.  Both parties submitted their written arguments.  We have also heard oral arguments.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7. Point No.1  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OP.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 26.10.2013.  The available materials on record furnished by the complainant at serial No.2 with list dated 18.01.2016 goes to show that she has taken treatment for about six sittings.  Further the follow up record dated 11.06.2015 is not signed by the client.  So much importance cannot be placed on it.  According to the case of the complainant the cause of action for the complaint arouse on 26.10.2013, 29.09.2013, 25.10.2013 and 05.12.2013.  This complaint was filed on 21.01.2016 i.e., after long lapse of two years 46 days for which there is no any application filed for the condonation of delay.  When such being the fact as rightly urged by counsel for OP stating that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time is acceptable.  Hence we record our finding stating that complaint is hopelessly barred by time.  Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.

8. Point No.2:-  We have already recorded our finding on point No.1 holding that the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly barred by time.  Under such circumstances it is needless to record the finding on other issue in the light of decision reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 121 in the case of State Bank of India Verwsus B.S Agriculture Industries (I).  The relevant para is at 21, wherein it is held as under:

“21. Since the complaint is barred by time and liable to be dismissed on that count, it would be unnecessary to examine the other grounds of challenge.”

Accordingly this issue does not survive for consideration.

          9. Point No.3: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed holding that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by time.  Looking to the circumstances of the case we direct both parties to bear their own costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 17^th day of June 2019)

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Vln*

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 15.07.2016.

Mrs.Bharathi Ravi Kumar

Documents produced by the complainant:

  Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated
  25.09.2016.

                Sri.Mahesh Kalayarril.  

Documents produced by Opposite Party – Nil.

MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Vln*