Puneet Chhabra filed a consumer case on 09 Jul 2021 against Athelonics Gym in the DF-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/529/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Jul 2021.
Chandigarh
DF-II
CC/529/2020
Puneet Chhabra - Complainant(s)
Versus
Athelonics Gym - Opp.Party(s)
Yuvraj Singh Aulakh Adv
09 Jul 2021
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Athelonics Hybrid Gym, SCO 146-148, Main Road, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh-160043 through its Owner.
…. Opposite Party
BEFORE:
SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT
SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER
SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER
Argued by
Sh.Manjot Singh Rai, Adv. for the complainant
OP exparte.
PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT
By dint of this common order, we propose to dispose of the following two (2) connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved:-
1
2
3
4
Sr.
No.
C.C. No.
Parties Name
Amount deposited (In Rs.)
529/2020
Puneet Chhabra Vs. Athelonics Hybrid Gym
13,000/-
531/2020
Pallak Chhabra Vs. Athelonics Hybrid Gym
13,000/-
The facts are gathered from Consumer Complaint No.529/2020- Puneet Chhabra Vs. Athelonics Hybrid Gym.
The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that on 03.03.2020, he enrolled for the membership of the OP-Gym by paying Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/-. On 11.03.2020, WHO had announced Covid-19 outbreak as pandemic because of which, the Chandigarh Administration directed closure of the Gyms. On 24.03.2020, the Central Govt. declared lockdown in India and on 05.08.2020, the Central Govt. allowed the gyms to reopen. It has further been pleaded that for 142 days, the GYM was closed as ordered by the Central Govt. and inspite of this fact, the OP is not ready to adjust 142 days in the membership, despite his repeated requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
Notice sent for the service of the Opposite Party through process server was received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was good service, and none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 07.06.2021, it was proceeded against exparte.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
Admittedly, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the lockdown was enforced all over the country on the evening of 24.03.2020 by the Government of India as a preventive measure and to curb the spread of Corona virus due to which the gym of the OP remained closed till 04.08.2020 and even this fact has been admitted by the complainant in the complaint himself.
Needless to mention here that the country is still reeling under the threats of covid-19 pandemic and its spread has not yet been controlled, thereby causing threats to life due to which lockdowns of varying stringency have been placed by the UT/State Governments from time to time to curb the spread of Corona virus. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the OP has committed any sort of deficiency in service or indulged into unfair trade practice by not rendering the promised services to the complainant, during that period
However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case(s), we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if both the complaints are disposed of with a direction to the OP to render the services to the complainant(s) for the remaining 142 days as and when the restrictions imposed by the Government/Authorities are lifted and the gym of the OP become fully operational. We order accordingly.
In view of the above discussions, both the complaints are disposed of as stated above with no order as to costs.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
09.07.2021.
Sd/-
(RAJAN DEWAN)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PRITI MALHOTRA)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(B.M.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.