Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/461/2019

Mange Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harbal Life International India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma

17 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                   

Complaint Case No.461 of 2019.

Date of Instt.:26.11.2019.

Date of Decision: 17.11.2023.

 

Mange Ram son of Chailu Ram resident of Dhani Majra Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

         

Versus

1.Herbal Life International India Limited # 14 Comsiriyat Road, Bangule (Karnataka) through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

2.Wellness Health Centre, Model Town, Fatehabad through incharge.

 

          ...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:       Sh.Rajesh Gandhi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Nishant Jain, Advocate for Op No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte VOD 09.01.2020.

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                                              DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                 

 

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the son of complainant is 13 year old having 72 kg weight and he wanted his son to be of less weight, therefore, he contacted the person/salesman whose pamphlet qua weight loss and weight gain was received by him; that the salesman also assured that the weight of son of the complainant would definitely decrease if he uses the product of Herbal Life, failing which the amount would be returned. The complainant, thereafter, on believing the assurance of Ops, purchased Shakes and pills of Herbal Life and his son started consuming the same, as per instructions of OP No.2; that the complainant made the payment of Rs.23881/- to the Op No.2 for the purchased products; that the son of the complainant kept on consuming the products in questions for three months continuously but it failed to reduce the weight of his son rather his son started bleeding on consuming Cell-U-Loss product; that thereafter the complainant contacted the Ops and requested for returning the amount in question but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice  only Op No.1 appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the replying OP is a global nutrition company and is helping people pursuing a healthy, active life since 1980. It has been further submitted that the independent Herbalife Associates are not agents/representatives of the company and are only selling the products of the company on a principal to principal basis; that the products are not medicinal; that the Op no.2 is not a registered nutrition club of the replying OP and it cannot be held liable for the act and conduct of OP No.2; that there is no compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this creates doubt on the veracity of the complaint; that the replying Op is not aware of the assurance of weight reduction was ever given to the complainant, therefore, no liability can be fasten upon it as no transaction has ever taken place between the complainant and replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No. 2 did not appear before this Commission despite service, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.01.2020.

4.                          In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure C1 and documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C7 whereas the appearing Op has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure R1.

5.                          Final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the case file has also been perused minutely.

6.                          Vide Annexure C2, the complainant had purchased the products from Op No.2 for the reduction of weight of his son. The grievance of the complainant is that the product in question did not give the assured results as per the commitment made by Op No.2 rather due to consuming of one of the products Cell-U-Loss his son started bleeding, therefore, he contacted the Ops with a request to refund the amount as per assurance but they did not pay any heed to his requests.

7.                          After going through the material available on the case file, one thing is very much clear that the complainant has allegedly purchased the products in question from OP No.2 and made the payment thereof to him as is depicted from Annexure C2.  The complainant in his complaint has specifically mentioned that as per the instructions of salesman/OP no.2, he started giving the products in question to his son but when it did not give any result, the Op no.2 started ignoring him and even did not come to his home to check his son. Though the Op No.2 has advised the complainant to lodge his complaint with Op No.1 but refused to return the money.

8.                          It is strange enough that despite being running a wellness centre the Op No.2 has not even suggested the complainant that the products in question are not made for minor/teenagers and further the Op No/1 being manufacturer of the product does not recommend it for the use of Children, teens, and people who are pregnant or breastfeeding until and unless it is supervised/prescribed by any pediatrician/ licensed dietitian or recognized medical practitioner. It is worthwhile to mention here that as per literature, the Teenage Weight Loss strategies and products should be approached with caution and it is advised to speak with a healthcare professional, such as a pediatrician or a licensed dietitian before beginning such programs when it comes to herbalife or any other weight reduction supplements. The pamphlets placed on file as Annexure C5, Annexure C6 and Annexure C7 by learned counsel for the complainant do not show that any pediatrician/licensed dietitian or recognized medical practitioner is involved in the project for becoming the wellness coach. Rather these pamphlets are inviting unethical business promotion for personal gain without taking care of the lives of others. The literature also shows that one can have side effects from dietary supplements if he/she takes high does or many different supplements which generally increases the risk of bleeding besides other medical issues. In the present case, the complainant has specifically mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint that his son started bleeding in nostrils and the complainant has levelled specific allegations against the OP No.2, who instead of countering the allegations of the complainant opted to remain absent from this Commission and was ultimately proceeded against exparte on 09.01.2020, therefore, this Commission has left with no other option but to believe the version put-forth by the complainant which is duly supported by authentic and credible evidence.  Since the Op No.1 in its reply supported with duly sworn affidavit has denied that the OP No.2 is its employee/associate and agent and even submitted that it (OP No.2) is dealing its business in a complete independent manner, therefore, Op No.1 cannot be held liable for any wrong done by OP No.2. Accordingly, complaint against Op No.1 stands dismissed.

9.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the considered view that the present complaint deserves acceptance against Op No.2 only as it is indulged in the unfair trade practice as well as dis-service to the complainant, as discussed above. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint against Op No.2 only with a direction to refund Rs.23880/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. We further allow Rs.11,000/-, (Rs. Eleven Thousand) in lump sum, towards mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and also towards litigation expenses. The compliance of the order be made by the OP No.1 within 45 days from today, failing which the above mentioned relief amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from date of filing of the present complaint till actual realization.

10.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated: 17.11.2023

                                                                                                        

         

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                       Member                              Member                              President