Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/42

Maninder Jit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Creative Fitness - Opp.Party(s)

SS Rai Adv

02 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

 

                                                  RBT/Consumer Complaint No. 42 of 17.01.2018

                                                  Date of Decision: 02.12.2022

 

Manninderjit Singh son of Narinder Singh resident of 40-F, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana 

                                                                                          ……Complainant

                                                            Versus

1. M/s Creative Fitness N Spa, Ansal Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director Mr. Pawan Jagtani
2. Mr. Pawan Jagtani, Managing Director, M/s Creative Fitness N Spa, Ansal Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana
3. Mr. Sumit Puri, General Manager, M/s Creative Fitness N Spa, Ansal Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana
4. Ms. Balpreet Kaur, Clerk, M/s Creative Fitness N Spa, Ansal Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana
5. Ms. Kiran Mahindra, Dealing Person, M/s Creative Fitness N Spa, Ansal Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana

                                                                                              ….Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:-

                    SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:-

          Sh. Surjit Singh Rai, Adv. For complainant

          Ms. Anchal Sethi, Advocate for (Ops No.1 to 3 ex-parte)

Complaint not admitted against Ops No.4 & 5.

 

ORDER:-

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

          The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint received by way of transfer from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant is an old customer of the opposite party No.1 since 2013 and has been regularly paying annual fee to the opposite party annual fee of Rs.35,000/- on 31.5.2016 starting date 2.1.2017 to 1.1.2018 and opposite party also gave two months complimentary period to the complainant i.e. up-to 01.03.2018 and opposite party Balpreet Kaur also issued receipt to the complainant dated 31.5.2016. The complainant has been visiting the gym and has never violated the terms and conditions observed by all the gym members. But now opposite party all for the reasons best known to opposite party all, have restrained the complainant from entering and using the gym equipments from the second week of November 2017. The complainant requested opposite party for not to restrain him as the complainant has paid total annual fee in advance and the expiry of the same is upto 01.03.2018 but the opposite party did not listen to him rather used derogatory language and asked the complainant to get out from the gym. This act of omission and commission of the OP have caused grave injustice, mental agony and harassment to the complainant as the complainant is not at fault and he is obeying the settled terms and conditions settled between the concern of the opposite party. The complainant paid charges of Rs.35,000/- in advance to the opposite party and is in possession of receipt of payment of the said amount. The opposite party has no right to harass and humiliate the complainant by illegal, wrongfully and forcibly restraining the complainant from entering into the gym without any kind of fault on the part of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant sought the following reliefs against the OPs:-

1. To refund Rs.35,000/- as advance fee paid by the complainant   
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages along with interest @ 18% per annum
4. To pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the Ops No.1 to 3 have choosen to remain exparte vide order dated 23.7.2018 but right is given by the Commission to the said Ops to participate in the proceedings where the proceedings are going on.  
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit along with documents in support of their version and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 to 3 has closed the evidence after tendering documents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely. 
5. Since the OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and otherwise also the evidence of the complainant appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. We have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint as well as documentary evidence attached with the complaint by the complainant. It is, proved on the file that the complainant is an old customer of the opposite party No.1 since 2013 and has been regularly paying annual fee to the opposite party annual fee of Rs.35,000/- on 31.5.2016 starting date 2.1.2017 to 1.1.2018 and opposite party also gave two months complimentary period to the complainant i.e. up-to 01.03.2018 and opposite party Balpreet Kaur also issued receipt to the complainant dated 31.5.2016. The complainant has been visiting the gym and has never violated the terms and conditions observed by all the gym members. But now opposite party all for the reasons best known to opposite party all, have restrained the complainant from entering and using the gym equipments from the second week of November 2017. The complainant requested opposite party for not to restrain him as the complainant has paid total annual fee in advance and the expiry of the same is upto 01.03.2018 but the opposite party did not listen to him rather used derogatory language and asked the complainant to get out from the gym.  The complainant had also submitted the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 to prove that the OPs have not refunded the amount deposited by the complainant.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is benevolent legislation enacted to help the poor consumers, which are being regularly harassed by the unscrupulous traders, who even after receiving the money do not provide the proper services to the consumers. We feel that the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, will fail if such types of traders are not brought to book and asked to pay compensation.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and O.Ps. No.1 to 3 are directed to refund Rs.35,000/- to the complainant. The said Ops are further directed to pay a lum sump amount of Rs.5000/-.   Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.

Announced:

02.12.2022                                                              (RANJIT SINGH)

                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                                MEMBER