BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.
Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1157/2016
Complaint filed on 14.03.2016
Date of Judgement.15.03.2017
PRESENT : 1. Shri Ramachandra M.S., B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT
2. Shri Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Complainant/s : Kishore Kadam,
S/o G.K. Jayarao Kadam ,
No. 220, Kalpavruksha,
1st A main, Mathura nagar,
Metagalli Extension, Mysuru.
( Sri. M.S. Panichethan., Advocate)
V/s
Opponent /s : 1. M/s Ego Wellness Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 4009, 100 feet Road,
OPP. Nandhan Hotel ,
Near Barbaque nation,
Indiranagar,
Bengaluru-560038.
2. Ego Wellness, No.507,
Kalidasa Road, Vijayanagar,
Mysuru-570017.
(Sri.M.V. Shrinath., Advocate )
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service |
Date of filing of complainant | : | 14.03.2016 |
Date of Issue notice | : | 26.04.2016 |
Date of Order | : | 15.03.2017 |
Duration of proceeding | : | 8 months 20 days |
SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,
PRESIDENT
JUDGEMENT
The complainant filed this complainant u/s 12 of CP Act seeking relief of refunded of amount of Rs 1,36,680/- and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the complainant has filed this complaint seeking redressal on the ground of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on party of the opposite parties.
The major contentions set forth by the complainant in his complaint are as follows:
The complainant is an Ex serviceman having served in prestigious Indian Army:
The first opposite party is engaged in running health care and spa through its various branches spread across the:
The second opposite party is one such branch:
The complainant with a hope of getting his hairs transplanted mislead with the advertisements and tagline of the opposite party approached the opposite party for hair transplantation:
The complainant approached the opposite party on 19.06.2015 again 01.07.2015 finally on 03.07.2015 and agreed to hair transplantation from the opposite party;
The opposite party advised FUE method of hair transplantation:
The FUE method of hair transplantation means wherein individual follicular units containing 1-4 hairs are removed under local anesthesia the separated follicular units are placed at the recipient area after derma brading the recipient area scalp.
The hair transplantation cost was Rs. 1,36,800/- inclusive of service taxes as claimed by the opposite party;
The complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- on 03.07.2015;
On 07.07.2015 the complainant visited for the next procedure and on the same day paid Rs. 50,000/-
Thereafter, the complainant paid remaining balance of Rs. 36,600/- on subsequent visit;
The complainant was informed to purchase medicines worth Rs. 20,600/- for hair growth;
The complainant was initially informed entire process shall take place in Mysuru;
However, after the payment was made complainant was asked to visit Indira nagar Branch in Banglore;
The complainant came to know that the person attending him was into even professionally trained for hair transplantation forget about they being doctors:
The complainant at this juncture started to check the veracity of the claims made by the opposite party;
The complainant maintained an application under Right to information Act to the office of the Assistant commissioner of Tax comissionerate Division a traffic and transit management seeking details with regard to payment of service tax:
It was informed that service tax was not being paid on any invoice;
The complainant maintained an application under RTI on 13.11.2015 to office of Assistant Drug controller, office Kuvempu nagar , mysuru:
On 27.11.2015 the aforesaid office have replied stating that the opposite party have not obtained any permission to sell any drugs:
The complainant thereafter gave an application under RTI to District Health and Family welfare officer on 17.12.2015 seeking information with regard to number of beds to be maintained by an institution carrying on hair transplantation:
Thereafter, the said application was transferred to Karnataka Private Medical Institutions Registration Authority, Mysuru, who in turn have clearly stated that institution carrying hair transplantation shall have to mandatorily get itself registered under Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Rules and Regulations and the said institution shall function as per the norms of the aforesaid Act.
Furthermore, the foresaid agency has clearly disclosed that the opposite party has not registered itself under the aforesaid act as mandated statutorily:
The opposite party clearly admit not only as son the date of administration of treatment to the complainant but also as on the date of issuance of reply notice itself the opposite party was not registered as mandated under the statute:
Thus, it is needless to say that the opposite party have indulged in daylight fraud and deceptive trade practices:
The opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice as is set out under section 2(1) (r) of the consumer protection Act:
Furthermore, failure to place 6000 follicles as promised amounts to deficiency in service a defined under section 2(1)(g) of the consumer protection Act;
The medicines administered by the opposite party is also available at a cheaper price outside. However, the opposite parties force to purchase at their institution itself thus amounting to monopolistic trade practise;
Moreover, the impugned products administered by the opposite party has not yielded any results as claimed by the opposite party thus even on this ground there has been deficiency in service on part of the opposite party;
Thus, the complainant has bought this complaint before the hon’ble Forum seeking damages:
After the service of notice this opposite parties have duly appeared and have filed version and is falsely contesting the rightful claims made by the complainant inter alia on the grounds mentioned herein below:
The opposite party admits that the complainant approached for hair treatment:
The opposite party admits the flow of consideration other than Rs. 36,800/- for the reasons best known to them:
The opposite party falsely alleges that only after thorough examination they would be able to identify where to conduct operation:
The opposite party further falsely alleges that the complainant has undergone FUT method of hair transplantation:
The opposite party further falsely alleges that they have hired professional doctors with years of experience without any document is support of the same:
The opposite party falsely alleges that the complainant created ruckus and falsely alleges that he demanded money:
The opposite party further falsely allege that service tax is being paid by the opposite party timely and even otherwise same does not come within the confines of the Forum;
The opposite party further falsely alleges that the medicines/impugned products administered by them are only dietary supplements and its impact on the body of a person varies from person to person:
The opposite party further falsely alleges that dietary supplements are being administered by mere advice and not by prescription:
The opposite party falsely alleges that the plea of monopolistic trade practice cannot be taken before the Hon’ble Forum for want of jurisdiction;
The opposite party falsely denies that spurious goods and services as per section 2(1)(00) of the consumer protection Act was administered:
The opposite party further falsely alleges that the liability for not having registered the firm under the Karnataka Private Medical establishment act cannot be fastened before this Hon’ble Forum:
The opposite party further falsely alleges that the Hon’ble Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction:
3. The notice to the opposite party duly served and represented by counsel filed version in para one opposite party has admitted that the complainant has approached the opposite party for a hair transplant operation at Mysuru branch office subsequently the operation conducted at Bangalore head office of opposite party.
4. Opposite party admits that they are engged in the hair , skin and body treatment service there head office is situated at Bengalore and also admits that there branch offices is all our Karnatakata.
5. The further admits para 4 of complaint on that complainant approached the opposite party company on 19.06.2015 and finally on 03.07.2015 the opposite party advised complainant to undergo “FUT” method of hair transplant. For which opposite party has administered local anaesthesia to undergo follicular extraction in and total cost is about Rs. 1,36,800 complaint has paid advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party.
6. The opposite party has admitted para 5 of the complaint balance sale consideration of Rs. 36,800 is due by complainant as per the advice of opposite party, complainant took all supplements.
7. Further opposite party has denied para 6 of complaint that branch office of Mysuru and Banglore is differently equipped earlier opposite party in formed, that hair transplant operation will be conducted at Mysuru , later it was shifted to Banglore branch as the head office is well equipped for the operation, all these facts is not correct and opposite party deemed it as false.
8. Further opposite party has denied para 7 and 8, of complaint as false and that the administrative staff do not perform the medical examination and operation, for that opposite party has avail service of specialized and qualified doctors to do operation and other consultation whenever their service is required, this is how opposite party is rendering their service to their customers and they providing best service to the complainant and others customers who ever approaches the opposite party.
9. Further opposite party denied para 9 of the complainant that there is no such offers of monetary settlements made by opposite party company on the other hand it is complainant who has tried to extract money from opposite party . Further opposite party has contended that he is never indulged in such activity.
10. Further opposite party has denied para 10 of the complaint that they have obtained service tax registration on 25.04.2013 under categorise of health club, fitness and beauty parlour and also contended that they are not defaulter of service tax as contended by complainant and finally they state that this fora is not vested with jurisdiction to decided service tax issue the relief could be lies elsewhere not before this fora.
11. The averments made in para 11 of the complainant ‘s hereby denied has false, the medications prescribed by opposite party are not drugs and it is dietary supplements when such being the case the opposite party does not need to obtained licence from the drugs and cosmetics authority 1940 as alleged by complainant.
12. Further opposite party denied para 12 and 13 of complaint as false but, they admit that opposite party company does fall under the definition of the term private medical establishment u/s 2(2) of the Act opposite party company has taken a necessary steps to obtain licence under KPME Act 2007. Further denied opposite party has been involved in un fair trade practice as per sec 2(1)(r) of C.P.Act.
13. Further opposite party denied para 14 of complaint that they not made any such promise that totally 6000/- follicles of hair will be embedded in the scalp of the complainant. It dependent upon the hair density of the complainant. Accordingly they planted 1500 to 2000/- follicles to the complainant.
14. Further opposite party denied para 15 of complainant as false that all dietary supplements are of same contents opposite party contends that dietary is being manufacture by zode pharmaceuticals it cannot be compared with other with any other supplement this available in the market.
15. Further opposite party contends that there is no unfair trade practice by their company as alleged in complainant and also there is no spurious goods and service as per sec 2(1) (00) of C.P. Act 1986.
16. It is also stated that as per invoice more specifically under annexure ABC the complainant has accepted the territorial jurisdiction of any dispute that arise shall be adjudicated within the territorial jurisdiction of Bangalore in such event complainant has breached contractual obligation for which this fora has no jurisdiction to try this complainant it is liable to be dismissed.
17. Further opposite party has denied all other averments of complainant as false and prayed for the dismissal of complainant.
18.The complainant and opposite party have filed chief examination affidavits, and documents in support of contention:
19. Heard arguments.
20. The points that arise for our consideration are;
- Whether the complainant proves that this forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this complainant?
- Whether the complainant proves that there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant proves that he is entitle for the relief as sought?
- What order?
21. Our answer to the above points is as follows;
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: In the affirmative
Point No.3: In the affirmative
Point No.4: In the affirmative
Point No.5: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
22 . Point No.1:- This is first and foremost contention which was raised by opposite party unless and until this point is answered affirmatively we cannot go further to the merits of the complaint here we have to see whether this fora lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of complainant. Here as per Sec II C.P. Act 1986 firstly cause of action has arose within the territorial limits of this forum secondly where the opposite party has a branch office within the territorial limits of this forum. These are the aspects which decide the jurisdiction of any complaint.
23. Further as a matter of fact a person in particular complainant and opposite party cannot limit, restrict or take away the right of jurisdiction of this forum. By way of mere contract without there being any statutory bar in the act on the same.
24. Further it is settled position of law as per the provision of act the conferment of Jurisdiction is a legislative act and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties . It is particularly as per the enactment of Act on this point.
25. The complainant has relied on ruling of Honble National commission it has been held that cause of action exclusion of jurisdiction cause of action arose at Bilaspur ( HP) the plea of respondent no 1 that class II of terms and conditions courts situated at Coimbatore, city alone shall have the jurisdiction to try any dispute. The gist of ruling is that “Even in the instant case merely extending the jurisdiction, in invoice and bills does not restrict jurisdiction.
26. complainant has relied on ruling rendered by Chissttisgarth state consumer commission pandri rajpur reported in CLT 2013(3) at page 223 in a complainant between Bharat petroleum corporation Ltd ., V/s Sudhir surana the principles of this ruling is that territorial jurisdiction simply because it is printed on the coupon, that dispute will be subject to jurisdiction of particular place will not restrict the jurisdiction, in view of section 11(2) (a) and (b) and (C) this ruling is also aptly applicable to the complaint on hand.
27. Further complainant relied on ruling rendered by our Karnataka state consumer commission reported in CPR 2005, 2 page 474, in case a complaint between M/s Reliance industries Ltd v/s Simon martis. Hon’ble commission held that any agreement between the parties restricting jurisdiction to a particular court cannot be extended to the fora under consumer protection Act as consumer fora is not a court situated under Civil procedure code and they are only quasi judicial authorities the principal of the ruling is also aptly applicable to the complaint on hand.
28. Further complainant has relied another ruling of Hon’ble State consumer commission of Bhopal a reported in CPJ 1992 /68/1991 CPR 367 between M/s Ras motores V/s Aditya Jain Hon’ble commission held CP Act 1986 section 1(2) (C) territorial jurisdiction contract Act 1872 section 23 and 28 dealer at Gwalior making agreement by booking order of hero honda motor cycle to be delivered at Gwalior one of the clauses of booking agreements stating that in case of dispute only Delhi courts will have jurisdiction whether Gwalior District forum have jurisdiction (yes). The gist and principle of the ruling is that the opposite party cannot restrict the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court in what so ever manner.
29.Further opposite party has misunderstood the principles of Indian contract Act section 23 and 28. What considerations and objects are lawful and what not the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void section 28 agreement in restraint of legal proceedings void.
30. Further as per section 11 CP Act 1986 the complainant shall be instituted in a District forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.
- The opposite party or each of the opposite party where there are one more than one, at the time of institution of complainant , actually and voluntary resides or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain or where the case of action wholly or in part arises.
31. Further from the above discussions we are of opinion that in this complaint the opposite party in agreement signed by complainant has tried to restrict the territorial jurisdiction to Banglore such act of opposite party amounts to violation of basic principles of legislation and when the CP Act and other ruling of our own state commission and other commission have laid down the same principles. Which is to be followed by the complainant while filing a complaint any such restriction of jurisdiction to file complainant is against the basic principles of act and guidelines of the highest court of our State and National commission such act and omission of opposite party is unlawful and also illegal. From the above discussion we are of the definite view that this fora has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on hand.
32. Point no.2:- Complainant submits that complaint has carried away by the misleading advertisements run by the opposite party which is telecasted in TV news papers and through pamphlet etc., attracted by their advertisement believing it to be as true, and also they are doing with team of doctors who are experts in that particular filed. Complainant hired the service of opposite party. The total cost of the hair transplantation was Rs. 1,36,800 as agreed by both parties. the opposite party has admitted the payment of Rs . 1 lakhs however they deny payment of 36,800/- complainant alleged that as matters of fact without paying entire amount the opposite party never conducts hair transplantation. To prove this fact complainant has produced one letter issued by opposite party by stating that the payment should be made before the date of surgery. As per the contents of this documents we can come to the conclusion that the opposite party has received entire amount of Rs. 1,36,800 from the complainant. In spite of receipt of entire amount opposite party is denying the fact the balance amount is not paid by complainant, this act of opposite party is nothing but a unfair trade practice. Further opposite party failed to rebut these facts by way of any defence evidence in support of his contention.
33. Further complainant states that at the initial consultation in the beginning the opposite party promised the complainant that hair transplantation procedure will be conducted at Mysuru branch later the opposite party shifted the transplantation procedure to his branch office at Banglore this act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice on his part . Here opposite party has failed to assign any valid reason for shifting the operation place from Mysore to Banglore the defence taken by opposite party for the same cannot accepted at any stretch of imagination it is only a formal defence in order to escape the liability to pay any compensation in case of this fora were to pass any orders on that count . It is a forethought weak defence by the opposite party .
34. Further complainant submits that the persons who have examined ,treated the procedure of transplantation of hair were not even trained professionals. They are un-trained beautation who work in the opposite party health and spa centre this is the way in which how the opposite party is equipped with such a untrained person in his organization. further in our opinion the procedure of hair transplant has to be done by professionally export doctors who are supposed to be specialized in their specialized department. Here it is very important to have General physician and anaesthesia specialist and Dermatologist. The service aid and advice of all this specialist team of doctors is required to conduct such a hair transplantation procedure. To conduct such procedure the opposite party should have equipped operation theatre with all medical equipments and machinery in case of emergency while conducting such operation with use of anaesthesia. In such event opposite party required will equipped OT in his premises . When such being the case the failure of opposite party to provide such basic necessity while rendering the service to the complainant. It is evident and clear the opposite party is rendering bad service to the complainant, as well as to any customer whoever approaches them for service. It is nothing but a minor operation, this has to be done under the supervision of these doctors. Here when opposite party is conducting such a procedure without the aid and advice and assistance of any of these specialized doctors and they are extracting money for such illegal activity the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court to initiate criminal proceeding against opposite party.
35. Further the opposite party has try to rebut the allegation and claim of complainant by way of defence evidence opposite party has examined one witness from their side. That witness is one Akshata R. Shetty BDS graduate as per the registration certificate produced by opposite party. They contend that the specialized doctors are working for the opposite party organization under whose supervision they are conducting such hair transplantation procedure and further opposite party contended, that they avail the service of specialized doctors service when ever their service is required, They also denied all the allegation of complainant and state that they are rendering proper service as per the norms.
36. Further complainant has destroyed the defence evidence of opposite party by way of cogent and convincing evidence in support of his contention under RTI on 11.03.2016 complainant has obtained reply from the Karnataka State dental counsel that the witness Akshata R. Shetty belongs to Rajeev Gandhi University of health and Science as per the rules prescribed by the dental counsel of India a BDS doctor is neither qualified nor permitted to do hair transplantation this RIT reply has established that whatever defence taken by opposite party, is in order to escape the liability to pay compensation to the complainant. by way of this authentic report issued by KPM Act the complainant had diluted the defence taken by opposite party.
37. Further complainant has relied on report of National centre for Bio technology information which is an autonomous agency which provides information resources for genomic , of genetical and biomedical data under the aegis of US National Library medicine clearly states that the physician performing hair transplantation should have completed graduate training on dermatology. Even association of hair restoration surgeons India which has been registered under the registrar of firms and societies Chandigarh Punjab with registration no 182 of 2008-09 there is a clear guide lines followed and approved by the IS HRS ( International society of hair restoration surgery) and AB HRS (American Bord of Hair restoration surgery) and AHRS (Association of Hair restoration surgeons) only a qualified allopathic physician / surgeon can do hair transplantation here BDS doctor who is not qualified to conduct such procedure availing service of such person is nothing short of un fair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
38.Further complainant submits that as per the guide lines and norms of Karnataka medical private establishment act the opposite party ought to have enrolled-and registered their firm under the act to provide any service, further it is mandatory requirement to get registered under the act to carryout hair transplantation here complainant produced a reply of u/r RTI Act which clearly established that opposite party has applied for registeration of their firm subsequent to filing of the present complaint. it is crystal clear, that opposite party carrying on business without registration of their firm.
39. Further from the above all discussion and after perusal of authenticated reply and report of concerned government department and other government approved institution and the act and conduct of opposite party, has clearly shows that there has been on unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party u/s 2(1)(r) of CP Act. Complainant has proved his fact of un fair trade practice beyond reasonable doubt. On the part of opposite party .
40. Point no.3: Complainant contends that opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service, that the opposite party promised that 6000 follicles shall be planted initially however only 1200 follicles have been placed by opposite party. Here there is clear violation of contractual obligation by the opposite party for which complainant is liable to get compensation from the hands of opposite party this act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service u/s 2(1)(g) of consumer protection Act 1986.
41. Further for the above said allegation of complainant, the opposite party has taken a defence of by stating that the outcome of hair transplantation depends upon the life style of a person thus the outcome of the hair transplantation is beyond their control by way of this defence the opposite party has once again violated the terms of contract entered between them and further for the first time and after filing of this complainant the opposite party has taken such a plea of defence in order to patch up the latches of his earlier statements.
42. The conduct of opposite party apparently established that in order to attract customer he use to give false assurance and make false promises in order to extract money from the customer. When once they approach they used to rob them and if it does not work for them, he gives lame reasons for the failure of his treatment and result, this act is nothing but deficiency in service.
43. Further complainant submits that the opposite party is responsible for the sale and marketing of spurious goods as provided u/s 2(00) of CP Act. The opposite party admits that he is involved in marketing the impugned products however the opposite party gives a lame excuse by stating that the just recommends the impugned products to its customers only upon consultation of customers like complainant which is for from truth. The real fact is that after the hair transplantation, procedure makes the customers to purchase these impugned producer under the impression of they being beneficiary in hair growth.
44. The complainant has disputed the fact the said products which is forcefully sold by the opposite party is not effective as promised by opposite party. And there is no positive result as assured by opposite party. The complainant has clearly stated that the impugned products are dietary supplements actually sold as medicines to the complaint along with other customers are being misinformed and he is forced to purchase the same for better result of the hair transplantation.
45. Further the opposite party has utterly failed to disprove the allegation of complainant that the medicine. Which is prescribed and advice , supplied and taken has medicine has part of treatment. By way of dietary supplementary has helped here opposite party has miserably failed to prove that the method of treatment which is adopted by him is helpful for the complainant. in order to dis prove claim of complainant. The opposite party has neither examined, specialized doctor nor submitted any laboratory report in support of his defence, Which will definitely helpful to the opposite party in order to established his defence in the complaint. Here the negligence and carelessness attitude of opposite party has made us to believe that whatever allegation made against to opposite party by the complainant. is true and correct. In view of the same we have come to conclusion by looking at events and facts and material produced by complainant. That these act were done by opposite party. In order to make un law full gain for himself.
46. Further there is a deficiency in service on the party of opposite party has defined u/s 2(1) (G) of consumer protection Act which reads as follows:-“Deficiency “means any fault , imperfection , short coming or in adequacy in the quality , nature and manner of perform which is required to be maintained by are under any law for the time being in force of has been under taken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
47. In support of his contention the complainant has relied on judgement of Hon’ble Delhi State consumer commission between the body care v/s Ashok kumar solanki reported in CPJ 2005, 1, at page 402. The facts and the principles of this ruling is aptly applicable to the complaint on hand.
48. Even in this complaint the complainant has been mislead by the advertisements in TV , news paper and wrong advice by ordinary unskilled person and by use of unscientific method of treatment, complainant also suffered mental agony and incurred financial loss and also suffered bodily pain and other side effects give to wrong advice, by improper treatment given by un processional persons of opposite party company . For which opposite party is liable to pay compensation and other reliefs for complainant as prayed in the complaint.
49. Point no .4: For the above reasons stated and discussed as the complainant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. With material evidence and documents in support of his contention and also proved the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for which complainant deserves the relief as sought in the complaint and opposite party is liable to pay in order to compensation for his deficiency in service, unfair trade practice to the complainant.
50. The opposite party in totality has tried to disprove the claim of complainant, opposite party utterly failed to support his defence with rebuttable evidence they have relied on judgments rendered by apex court of India between General motors limited V/s Ashok Ramnik lal total (2015, 1 scc 429, another ruling of supreme court of India between Indian medical association v/s shanth and other (1995) 6 scc 651 . The facts and principal of these ruling is not applicable to this complaint.
51. Further the complainant proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and also to proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
52. According to this forum we answered Point no.1 to 4 in the affirmative and pass the following:
53. Point no.5:- For the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
- The opposite party is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 1,36,680 and also Rs. 20,600 to the complainant within 60 days of this order with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. from the date 03.07.2015 to till payment is made.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards deficiency in service to the complainant within 60 days of this order.
- The opposite party is directed to pay of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of proceeding to the complainant within 60 days of this order.
- In default to comply, the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the said amount of Rs. 4,55,000/-from the date of filing complaint to till payment.
- In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall
undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of
the CP Act, 1986.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 15th March 2017)
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of complainant:
CW-1 : KIRSHOR KADAM
Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
1 : Application for registration of new private medical
establishment dated 04.02.2016
2 : Reply given by Karnataka State Dental counsel
3 : Report by Association of Hair restoration surgeon India
4 : Estimate given in the name Praveen
5 : Consultation bill in the name of Praveen
6 : Two tax invoice dated 03.02.2015, 07.07.2015
7 : Medicals bills
8 : RTI application given to AC of service tax Banglore.
9 : Reply given by AC of service tax Banglore.
10 : RTI Application given to District Health and Family welfare
officer
11 : Reply given by District Health and Family welfare.
12 : Medicine ingredients
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF OP.
Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP :
RW1 : MAHESH KALARAYAL
Documents marked on behalf of OP :
- : The copy of the Sales tax receipt of the opposite party for the
Period of October, March -2012-2013
- : The copy of the Sales Tax receipt of the opposite party for the
Period of April-September, 2013-2014.
- : The copy of the Sales tax receipt of the opposite party for the
Period of October –March-2013-2014.
- : The copy of the Sales Tax receipt of the opposite party for the
period of October-March-2014-2015.
- : The copy of the Sales tax receipt of the opposite party for the
period of April- September-2014-2015.
- : The copy of the Registration Details of the opposite party under
Karnataka private medical establishments along with the copy
of the application for registration of new private establishment
and copy of the acknowledgement slip.
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.
