25.06.2024
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY SMT. SUNITA.C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed in CC.No.328/2023 by Bangalore 1st Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Shantinagar Banglore-27.
2. The learned advocate for appellant submits that, there is no dispute that the respondent is a member of “Gold’s Gym-Basavangudi Branch” and has been a member in the year 2021-2022 and again entered into a contract of membership with Franchise on 07.07.2023 last till 07.07.2024. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has opted for the “Platinum Personal Training Program” commenced on 07.12.2021 to 06.03.2022, which is 3 months program that is 36 sessions in total and the member had booked 12 sessions in a month with a designated personal trainer every alterative 3 days in a week by paying amount of Rs.59,400/-. Further submitted that the Respondent did not informed the Appellant No.2 about his medical condition, medical history and ailments which is mandatory part of enrollment procedure. As per excel sheet document maintained by the Appellant No-2, the Respondent has attended 26 out of 36 sessions and if it can be assumed that the respondent had been absent for the sessions for whatsoever reasons, the “Personal Trainer Record Handbook” mentioned that incase of absenteeism by the member, the personal training session will be marked as conducted. Further submitted that the respondent mislead the District Commission and placed the Appellants Ex-parte, which is vexatious and misleading and the District Commission not got an opportunity being heard. Further submitted that the appellants have a very good case on merit and they may be permitted to contest the matter.
3. Perused the appeal memorandum order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the District Commission admitted the complaint and issued notice to the appellants. Inspite of service of notice, the appellants remained absent, hence the District Commission has placed the appellants as Ex-parte. Perused the contents of the complaint, affidavit evidence of complainant and documents produced by the complainant, the District Commission has passed the order. If the appellants inspite of service of notices not present before the Commission and contest the matter, it is a negligence on the part of the appellants only and ignorance of law has no excuse. Moreover, in appeal memo the appellants have not stated the valid reasons for non-appearance, inspite of service of notice. Hence, no ground made out to provide an opportunity to the appellants to contest the matter.
4. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly,
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed.No order as to costs.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
ARD*
