ABHINAV KUMAR filed a consumer case on 16 Jun 2014 against BODY CARE in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/500/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Jun 2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESDSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92
COMPLAINT NO. 500/2014
DATE OF INSTITUTION. 16/06/2014
DATE OF ORDER. 20/05/2016
Sh. ABHINAV SINGH,
R/O H.NO.1-4, GOKALPUR,
DELHI-110094
Complainant
Vs
THE BODY CARE
OFF. 29, DEFENCE ENCLAVE VIKAS
MARG PREET VIHAR NEW DELHI-110092
Opponent
Sukhdev singh (President)
P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Complainant’s Advocate:______________
Opponent’s Advocate :______________
Order By: Dr. P.N. TIWARI (MEMBER)
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant joined slimming centre under the name “The Body Care Slimming and Beauty Clinic” at respondent address (Off. 29, Defence Enclave Vikas Marg Preet Vihar New Delhi-110092) for reducing his body weight for consideration of total fees Rs.35000/- which was paid to the respondent vide receipt No.374 and 369 on dated 31/05/2014. The respondent committed for reduction of 35 kg and 20-30 inches losses from the body of the complainant after 12 months. The respondent further assured that the complainant need not go for dieting, exercises and other activities. After passing 12 months time period, the complainant did not get any relief by respondent’s therapy hence requested for refund of the deposited amount which was refused by the respondent. The complainant has stated in his complaint that he suffered extreme mental agony and financial loss by the unfair, illegal and unlawful activity of the respondent. For this act of the respondent he has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges through this complaint.
After perusal of the facts of the complaint and annexure filed by the complainant, case was admitted and notice were served. Despite of giving ample opportunity to the respondent none was present on behalf of the respondent neither filed any written statement nor any evidence, hence, the respondent was proceeded ex_parte, thereafter complainant filed the evidence by way of affidavit. In his affidavit he has narrated the facts which have been mentioned in his complaint.
We have heard the arguments and have perused the material placed on record. From the evidence, it is noticed that the complainant opted service of respondent for reduction of weight loss, but except the bills there is no record available or filed by the complainant which could prove that the complainant did not get any relief in reference to body weight at the time of initiation of therapy and at the end of therapy after 12 months. More so ever, the judgment of this Forum was placed on record by the complainant under the heading SHARAD PALIWAL VS M/S REDISCOVER in CC. No. 975/12, the facts mentioned in this citation does not resemble to the present complaint. The reference of this order cannot be taken on record but it is true that complainant has availed the service from the respondent. As complainant failed to prove the deficiency and unfair trade practice of respondent, complaint is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to record room(R/R).
(Dr.P.N. TIWARI) (SUKHDEV SINGH)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.