Delhi

South Delhi

CC/85/2010

SOMNATH BHARTI - Complainant(s)

Versus

FITLINE WELLNESS SERVICES PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/85/2010
 
1. SOMNATH BHARTI
BHARTI NILL 26AB MALVIYA NAGAR NEW DELHI 110017
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. FITLINE WELLNESS SERVICES PVT LTD
D-83 NEAR MAIN MARKET OPPOSITE MOTHER DAIRY MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110017
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. N K GOEL PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. NAINA BAKSHI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
None for the Complainant
 
For the Opp. Party:
Clerk of Sh. Dinesh Sharma Adv. for the OP
 
Dated : 27 Apr 2017
Final Order / Judgement

                                             Sh. Somnath Bharti     V/s   Fitline Wellness Services Pvt. Ltd. 

 

Notice for pairavi issued to the complainant vide dispatch No.546 dated 20.03.17 has been delivered to him on 05.04.17. Copy of the track report is Mark A.

None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 03.06.13. Therefore, notice for pairavi was issued to him for today. None has appeared on his behalf today as well despite service of notice.

 Pleadings are complete. Evidence of the parties is also complete. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the parties. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits.

As per the averments made in the complaint the complainant became the member of the OP by paying Rs.5,000/- as subscription/membership fee by means of a cheque which was encashed by the OP and the complainant was to enjoy the benefits of his membership from 15.12.09 to 14.12.10. However, the OP did not start the club but instead the OP returned the amount of Rs.5,000/- to him by means of a cheque dated 13.01.10. According to the complainant, OP has committed deficiency in service. Hence, he has filed the present complaint for the reliefs mentioned in the prayer clause.

 OP has contested the complaint and filed a reply.  The averments made in the complaint have been denied.

From the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by them it stands proved on the record that the OP had infact refunded the amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. There is no evidence on the record which may even suggest that the complainant had accepted refund of Rs.5,000/-  from the OP under protest. Therefore, as soon as the complainant accepted refund of Rs.5,000/-  from the OP he ceased to be a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we hold that the complaint is without any cause of action.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be given dasti to the clerk of Counsel for the OP and copy be also sent to the Complainant through speed post. File be consigned to record room.

                                                                              

 

Announced on 27.04.17.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. N K GOEL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NAINA BAKSHI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.