Karnataka

Kolar

CC/11/2016

M.Shashank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashwini - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 21/03/2016

Date of Order: 26/04/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 11 OF 2016

Sri. M.Shashank, Student,

Aged About 19 years,

 

(Rep. by his father

Sri. K.S. Manjunath,

S/o. Shivanna,

Kallipura Village,

Shilangere Post,

Kolar Taluk & District.)                                           ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

Ashwini, V3 Slim Care #14,

1^st Floor, 100 ft Ring Road,

BTM Layout, 2^nd Stage,

Bangalore-560 076.

 

(Since placed expare)                                         …. Opposite Party.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint (taken read as Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) has sought relief of recovery of Rs.18,000/-, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and expenses of Rs.7,000/-, thus total sum of Rs.35,000/- from the OP.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, having observed the advertisement in TV with regard to remedy to prevent hair fall and for re-growth of the hair from the fallen part of the head on 23.05.2015 he along with his mother visited the OP.  And that the OP assured successful treatment and as an incentive came forward to give free treatment for pimples.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that believing in the assurance that hair root from the fallen part of the head would be made to re-grow, gave advance to the OP in sum of Rs.2,000/- (due to typographical error figure mentioned is as if Rs.200/-, but taken read in the fitness of Rs.2,000/-.)  And that on 29.05.2015 paid the balance sum of Rs.16,000/-.  He has also contended that though initially the OP opted for consideration of Rs.20,000/- for the treatment, ultimately had settled for Rs.18,000/- which came to be so paid.

 

(c)    It is further contended that initially 02 or 03 sittings were given once in every week and later for 15 days and later for a month.  And that he being a student persuaded the OP to provide sittings on Sundays being holidays.  Further it is contended that for 2 or 3 sittings fetched no results.  And that on enquiry he was told that it would take some more time for successful treatment and sought for the co-operation.  And that later even the sittings were on other days other than Sundays which he did attend.

 

(d)    Further it is contended that as the prescribed sittings were over without any fruitful results and as the treatment came to be stopped he gave 30 to 40 calls to the OP.  And that the receptionist who received the calls’ was only to tell that appointment would be fixed after arrival of the Doctor.  And that no such appointments were intimated.  Further it is contended that, when he continued to repeat the calls he could receive the message of mobile, being switched-off.  Further it is contended that when one more effort was made by giving telephonic call reply given was that all the sittings were over. 

 

(e)    Further it is contended that when he told that the very main problem of re-growth was not solved by approaching the OP in-person he was told that, two extra sittings would be provided.  And that when he went alone the OP demanded to accompany with the parents.  And that however on that day treatment of one sitting was given with a caution that next time parents should be brought.  And that when on next occasion he approached the OP along with his father no treatment was given.  And that on enquiry by his father OP told that, no such assurance of treatment was given.  Contending that he was deceived by the OP, the present complainant has come up with the complaint on hand seeking the above set out reliefs.

 

03.   Along with the complaint he has submitted Xerox copies of service invoices dated: 23.05.2015, 29.05.2015, showing said payments of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.16,000/- to the OP respectively.  And also photograph showing front portion of the head of the complainant, has been submitted.

 

04.   on 11.04.2016 as the OP remained absent in spite of service of notice through RPAD (as the postal acknowledgement was received) this OP came to be placed exparte.

 

05.   On 25.04.2016 the said representative of the complainant submitted his affidavit evidence on behalf of the complainant.  On this day itself heard his oral arguments.

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether OP is guilty of deficiency in service as contended?

 

2.  If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

 

3.  What order?      

 

07.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1 & 2:-          In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 3:                 As per the final order

                                for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT 1 & 2:-

08.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    On the strength of the said complaint coupled with said documentary evidence and oral affidavit evidence of the said representative of the complainant which are un-opposed it would be crystal clear that the OP having accepted the package amount of Rs.18,000/-, i.e., Rs.2,000/- on 23.05.2015 and Rs.16,000/- on 29.05.2015; utterly failed in providing the assured treatment to this complainant. 

 

(b)    It is worth to note that 08 sessions were prescribed whereas the complainant faced even 09 sessions of assured treatment for hair re-growth which he could not.  Indisputably the OP has given advertisements through television media which would attract large number of clientale.  This unlucky complainant was one of them.  Having accepted the said consideration of Rs.18,000/- the OP has failed to give fruitful treatment.  Therefore the OP is squarely accountable for the deficiency in service. 

 

(c)    In the result we hold that, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.18,000/- being the consideration amount, as well, compensation of Rs.10,000/- as he has suffered mentally and physically for no fault of him together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.03.2016 being the date of the complaint till realization.

 

POINT 3:-

09.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- against the OP as hereunder:-

 

(a) The OP shall pay to the complainant said total sum of Rs.28,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.03.2016 being the date of the complaint till realization.

 

(b)    We grant time of one month to the OP to comply the order from the date of receipt of the same.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2016)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                         MEMBER                     PRESIDENT