Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/191/2019

Aman Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Boston gym - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Aman Gupta

06 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

       Complaint No.191 of 2019

       Date of instt.:16.05.2019

       Date of Decision: 6.09.2021

 

Aman Gupta, aged 21 years son of Sh.Rajesh Gupta resident of house No.604, Sector-2, Kurukshetra.

                                                              …..Complainant.

                                       Versus

 

Boston Gym, SCO 1, First Floor, Adjoining Divine business park, Opposite New Bus stand, Kurukshetra.

                     ……Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before    Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

              Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

              Smt. Neelam, Member.

 

Present:  Sh.Aman Gupta- complainant   in person.

              Shri Parveen Malik Advocate for the OP.

ORDER  

 

              This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Aman Gupta  against Boston Gym the opposite party.

2.          It is stated in the complaint that complainant on 4.4.2019 joined the Boston Gym after consulting with one of its fitness trainer Mr.Diwakar that he will train him and in furtherance of that the complainant bought membership for five months worth Rs.4000/-. However, on 12.4.2019, Mr. Diwakar left his job at the OP gym.  It is submitted that on 15.4.2019, the complainant requested the OP to transfer the membership to the account of complainant’s parental uncle who is also a member in the gym or give a refund after deducting reasonable amount but the OP did not accept either of the requests and blatantly refused to give any sort of remedy/refund.  They said their rules are absolute and cannot be changed in any case.  They also said that member’s account cannot be freezed for future use. This amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the OP be directed refund the membership fee to the complainant, take disciplinary action   under the unfair trade practice against the OP.

 

3.           Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant joined the Gym  and got the membership subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions specifically narrated in the membership form initially signed by the complainant before joining the  Gym after making payment of the membership. It is submitted that when the complainant has already made the payment of the membership then no question for transferring the same arises at all. Moreover, it was already made clear to the complainant that as per terms and conditions, the membership  fee is non transferable, non adjustable and non refundable. So question of transferring and refunding the same does not arises at all.  The OP never refused to provide the training to the complainant. So, there is no question of any deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.           The complainant in support of his case file affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.           On the other hand, OP in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

6.           On the other hand, OP  in support of its case has filed documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 and  its evidence was closed.

7.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

8.           The complainant has argued that the complainant joined the Gym of the OP on 4.4.3029  and paid Rs.4000/- as fee vide membership card Ex.C-2.  It is further argued that Mr.Diwakar, Trainer left the job at the  OP-Gym. Therefore, the complainant requested the OP on 15.4.2019 to transfer the membership to the account of parental uncle of the complainant or to refund the same to the complainant. It is also argued that the concern of the complainant is not commercial one and he has paid the fee for training, therefore, the complainant is consumer qua the OP and as such there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Reliance has been placed on the authorities Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Vs. Govindan Raghavan  Civil appeal No.12238 of 2018 decided on 2.4.2019 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  and  Allen Career Institute Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma Appeal No.357 of 2018 decided on 8.4.2019 by the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T.Chandigarh.

9.           On the other hand, Learned counsel for the OP while reiterating contentions made in the written statement has argued that  the complainant has duly signed Ex.R-1 containing the terms and conditions of the membership of the Gym of the OP and as per terms and conditions of the OP, the fee once paid is neither transferable nor adjustable or refundable.  The said membership card is duly signed by the complainant and thus the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions contained in Ex.R-1. The OP never refused to provide the training to the complainant. The OP has provided efficient services and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

 

10.         After hearing the learned counsel for the OP and complainant in person and going through the case file, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for refund  of the fee paid by him vide Ex.C-2.  In the membership card Ex.R-1, terms and conditions of the Gym of the OP are mentioned. As per these terms and conditions the fee paid is neither transferable nor refundable or adjustable.

                The contention of the complainant that trainer Mr.Diwakar left the job of trainer from the concern of the OP, therefore, he left the training from the Gym of the OP,  is devoid of any merit because if Mr. Diwakar had left the job, then  there were other trainers for providing training. The OP never refused to provide the training to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and  the complainant has not been subjected to mental harassment and agony. Therefore, the present complaint is devoid of any merit. The authorities cited on behalf of complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

 

11.         In view of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced in the open Commission

Dated : 06.09.2021.                                     President.

 

 

 

                     Member                Member.