BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 638 of 2013 against CC 218 of 2011, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
Between:
Ms. Hema Dhungana
D/o. Kaladhar
R/o. 12-87, Adarsh Nagar
Near IDPL Colony, Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
AND
Area Head In-charge
Ms. Babita Taneja
VLCC Health Care Ltd.
8-2-293/82/1/283-A
Mantris Building,
MLA Colony, Road No. 12
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant: P.I.P.
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Javed Razack
FA 38 of 2014 against CC 218 of 2011, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
Between:
Area Head In-charge
Ms. Babita Taneja
VLCC Health Care Ltd.
8-2-293/82/1/283-A
Mantris Building,
MLA Colony, Road No. 12
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Opposite Party
AND
Ms. Hema Dhungana
D/o. Kaladhar
R/o. 12-87, Adarsh Nagar
Near IDPL Colony, Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Javed Razack
Counsel for the Respondent: P.I.P.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order : 07/07/2014
(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)
***
1) These are the cross appeals. Dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Dist. Forum the complainant preferred FA No. 638/2013 while FA 38/2014 is filed by Opposite Party questioning the very order of the Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad in CC No. 218/2011 dt. 5.7.2013.
2) The facts in a narrow compass are that being attracted by the advertisement issued by Opposite Party in Deccan Chronicle the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 35,595/- to the Opposite Party towards Laser Hair Removal Treatment in six sittings. As she did not get the results as promised by the Opposite Party, she sought for refund of amount paid by her. Despite attending the complimentary sittings she did not get the desired results. The complainant alleges that as they failed to pay back the amount, she was constrained to approach the Dist. Forum seeking refund of Rs. 35,595/- paid by her together with compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
3) Opposite Party filed counter denying the allegations made by the complainant. While admitting receipt of an amount of Rs. 35,595/- towards ‘Laser Full Arm Reduction Treatment’ the Opposite Party contended that there is no deficiency of service on their part as the complainant did not follow the instructions given by them. She acted according to her whims and fancies and never adhered to ‘Dos and Don’ts’ supplied to her. The result of treatment varies from person to person. The efficacy depends on various factors like hair colour, texture, skin colour, density, area and exposure to external stimulants. Testosterone levels may hinder results. The complainant was instructed to avoid bleaching, waxing and plucking of hair for two weeks before the treatment session. The duration of treatment is three years and the complainant had taken treatment from 28.9.2007 to 21.6.2009 which is less than three years. This complaint is filed with a view to make unlawful gain. There is neither any error in giving treatment nor deficiency in service on their part, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4) The Dist. Forum after taking into consideration the material on record came to the conclusion that as the complainant did not get the assured results, directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 17,797/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.
5) As stated supra, challenging the said order, both parties preferred the above appeals.
6) The very fact that the complainant approached the Dist. Forum as well as this Commission clearly indicates that she was suffering. Unless and until she faced the same, she would not have taken the pains of approaching the Dist. Forum and this Commission. They started treatment on 28.9.2007 and she approached the Dist. Forum on 13.1.2011 and even till date she is fighting litigation. This itself clearly indicate the concern or the mental agony of the complainant. In those circumstances, we are of the view that she is entitled to entire amount of Rs. 35,595/- which she has paid towards treatment. So far as other amounts as awarded by the Dist. Forum are concerned, we confirm the orders passed by the Dist. Forum.
7) In the result the appeal preferred by the complainant FA No. 638/2013 is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 35,595/- to the complainant while confirming the compensation and costs awarded by the Dist. Forum. As a corollary, the appeal preferred by Opposite Party FA No. 38/2014 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K
