Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/24/2015

Ms. Anuradha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Health Sanctuary - Opp.Party(s)

Bhaskar Sharma

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/24/2015
Date of Institution	:	14/01/2015
Date of Decision	:	21/08/2015

 

 

Ms. Anuradha daughter of Sh. Vinay Mohan Gulati resident of House No.2199 (Top Floor), Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

The Manager, Health Sanctuary, SCO No.143-144, Sector
8-C, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Bhaskar Sharma, Counsel for the complainant
		OP ex-parte

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Ms. Anuradha, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The Manager, Health Sanctuary, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure C-1) got published by the OP in the newspaper regarding “3 days weight loss challenge”, she had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide receipt (Annexure C-2) on 9.9.2014 as full and final payment. 

                According to the complainant, as per the package, the amount of Rs.20,000/- was taken for 5 sittings of “Lipo” and 5 sittings of “Vacuum” and one sitting was given complementary.  The complainant has averred that as per the OP, the plan was tailor-made for her for reduction of weight on the stomach area and for flattening of tummy and the same was offered after examining her. The complainant has contended that she visited the OP as per schedule, but, still could not feel any signs of flattening of tummy area even after one month.  The complainant approached the OP with her grievance and she was told that there was no need of weight loss in order to get the flattening of tummy area.  When the complainant confronted the OP, no appropriate response was given. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 2.12.2014 (Annexure C-3) to the OP, but, to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         The OP did not appear despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 8.6.2015, he was proceeded ex-parte. 
3.         The complainant has led evidence in support of her contentions.
4.         We have gone through the evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant. 
5.         Copy of advertisement in the newspaper (Annexure C-1) shows that the OP got published an advertisement regarding “3 days weight loss challenge” through C-Lipolysis.  It was also mentioned that 20-25 cm. and upto 4 kg. could be lost through C-Lipolysis from abdomen, hips, thighs and arms and losing of weight was easy, fast and safe without any side effect. The copy of the receipt dated 9.9.2011  (Annexure C-2), coupled with the affidavit of the complainant, shows that an amount of Rs.20,000/ was taken by the OP for five sittings of lipo and 5 sittings of vacuum and apart from that one sitting was complementary. According to the complainant, the plan offered by the OP was tailor-made for the reduction of weight on the stomach area and for the flattening of tummy.  The affidavit of the complainant further shows that the complainant visited the OP as per schedule, but, could not feel any signs of flattening of the tummy area even after one month of her regular visits and not even 1 Kg. weight was lost. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service as well as harassment on the part of the OP because the OP could not justify the amount of Rs.20,000/- taken by him.  Pertinently, the complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP, copy of which is Annexure C-3, through registered post and copy of the postal receipt is at Annexure C-4, but, to no effect. The OP did not appear despite service and was proceeded exparte on 8.6.2015.  The evidence of the complainant against the OP has gone un-rebutted. The OP has not dared to come and contest the complaint and controvert the allegations of the complainant. Hence, the evidence on record proves that despite the fact that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the OP and followed the schedule, yet, there was no flattening of her tummy area nor any weight was reduced. The evidence shows that the complainant was harassed on account of the conduct of the OP and the OP was deficient in rendering services.  Accordingly, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed partly.  The OP is directed :-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant taken from her.
2. To make payment of a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and deficiency in service to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.7,500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.

6.         This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; failing which OP shall pay the amounts at Sr.No. (i) & (ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, besides complying with directions at Sr.No.(iii) above.
7.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
21.08.2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President