In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 203 / 2011.
1) Hema Gadodia,
3, Hungerford Street, Kolkata-700017. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Gold’s Gym,
Raj Kiran Building, 19A, Alipore Road, Kolkata-700027. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 15 Dated 31/05/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Hema Gododia against the o.p. Gold’s Gym. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant deposited Rs.17,100/- with o.p. in July, 2009, but could not avail their services due to the ailment of her father and matter was brought to the notice of o.p. and on persuasion o.p. made payment of Rs;.7500/- to complainant after obtaining her signature on the register. Further case of the complainant is that o.p. showing one form to the effect that o.p. had cleared all dues and complainant has stated in her petition of complaint that the same has been done fraudulently. Complainant persuaded o.p. on various occasions and in e-mail, but o.p. did not pay heed to that. Hence, the case.
Matter has been heard ex parte as o.p. did not contest the case by filing w/v.
Decision with reasons: -
We have gone through the pleadings of complainant, evidence and documents in particular. It is an admitted position that out of Rs.17,100/- o.p. made payment of Rs.7500/-. Complainant in the course of argument has submitted while arguing in person that in annex-5 attached with the petition of complaint, the signature appearing therein is not her signature and her signature has been forged there. We have compared the signatures appearing in annex-5 together with admitted signature in the petition of complaint of complainant and on naked eye it appears to us that the signature appearing in annex-5 does not seem to be signature of complainant. We have gone through the entire materials on record and we find that o.p. had adopted unfair means being a service provider and the act on the part of o.p. is highly condemnable to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed ex parte with cost against o.p. O.p. is directed to refund a sum of Rs.9600/- (Rupees nine thousand six hundred) only together with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization. O.p. is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.9000/- (Rupees nine thousand) only towards compensation for mental harassment, stress, strain agony and humiliation and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization .
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ _____Sd-______ ______Sd-______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
