Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/263/2024

SALANG ISHAN SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANBIR MALHAN - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/263/2024
Date of Institution	:	24/5/2024
Date of Decision	:	1/10/2024

 

Sh. Salang Ishan Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Shashi Kulbhushan Sharma, R/o H.No. 1465, Pushpac Society Sector 49 B, Chandigarh - 160047.

...Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Sh. Manbir Malhan, R/o H.No. 113, Emmar Society, Sector 105, Mohali, Sole Proprietor of Suprama Fitness.

2. Suprama Fitness, SCO- 70/71, Phase 9, Mohali GSTIN 03ACRFS9978C1ZI through its proprietor Sh. Manbir Malhan.

 

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	OPs No.1&2 exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that Opposite party No.1 is the proprietor of  Suprama Fitness gym (hereinafter referred to be as subject gym)  and on 24.1.2024  the complainant got gym membership renewed from OPs on payment of Rs.15,000/-  in advance till 30.5.2025, which was acknowledged  by the Opposite Parties vide invoice Annexure C-A. In the month of March 2024, the OPs closed the subject gym  due to renovation work and the same was supposed to be opened on  1^st April 2024. However, later on the complainant came to know that the Opposite party No.1 who  is also proprietor  of Opposite party No.2 Gym  had closed the subject gym permanently without any prior intimation to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant tried to contact Opposite party No.1 who did not pick up the call nor he has responded  back to the complainant.  Even after that the complainant has sent various messages to  Opposite party No.1 regarding  his grievance and screen shots of the messages are annexed as Annexure C-B. In this manner the OPs  have failed to render proper service to the complainant despite charging Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OPs  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 14.8.2024.
2. In order to prove their respective claims the complainant have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that  the complainant had paid Rs.15,000/-  to the OPs as membership fee w.e.f. 1.4.2024 to 31.3.2025 as is also evident from Annexure C-A the tax invoice  and the OPs have failed to render proper service to the complainant as agreed upon by the Opposite Parties as is also evident from tax messages Annexure C-B, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant.
   2.  Perusal of Annexure C-A the tax invoice  proves that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the Opposite Parties  for the gym service to be provided by them. Annexure C-B the messages, which show that the Opposite  Party No.1 has alleged that one Naveen Kumar his partner  has taken over the administrative and financial control of the gym.  However, invoice Annexure C-A issued by the OPs nowhere indicates  that Naveen Kumar is the partner of the Opposite parties gym.    Moreover, as nothing has come on record on behalf of Opposite Parties  in order to prove that the administrative and financial control  of the gym has been taken over by some third person, hence, it is safe to hold that the Opposite Parties have admittedly received an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant being gym charges for  1.4.2024 to 31.3.2025 has failed to render proper services to the complainant, and  the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
   1. to refund ₹15,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of deposit till onwards
   2. to pay lump-sum amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation;
5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/10/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member