Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/86/2019

Keshav Kumar Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. VLCC Healthcare Limited - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.S. Ahluwalia Adv.

19 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	86 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	15.02.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	19.08.2021

 

 

 

 

 

Keshav Kumar Thakur son of Sh.Umesh Kumar Thakur, resident of E-304, Sushma Elite Cross, Old Ambala Road, Gazipur, Dakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  M/s VLCC Healthcare Limited, M-14, G.K.-II, Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110048 through its Managing Director.

 

2]  M/s VLCC Healthcare Limited, SCO No.425-426, Himalaya Marg, Above KFC, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

        SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

 

 

Argued By: Sh.J.P.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. for complainant                  Sh.varun Mittal, Adv. for OPs

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant joined the OP Centre on 23.9.2018, being near to his residence & easily approachable, to reduce weight of 10 KG by  tummy trim, chest trip therapy, body therapy.  Accordingly, his father made payment of Rs.38,000/- to OP vide Ann.C-1.  It is stated that complainant regularly joined the OP Centre and reduced half of the committed weight of 10 Kg., whereupon OP No.2 gave lucrative offer to take further package for weight loss of 10 KG on payment of Rs.29,500/-. The said offer was accepted by the father of complainant by making payment of Rs.29,500/- through cheque on 28.11.2018   (Ann.C-2).  Stated that the complainant had not achieved the first target of weight loss of 10 kg as committed by OPs, while another offer was provided to him for another 10 Kg weight loss by OPs.  It is pleaded that to the surprise of the complainant, the OPs without any prior intimation or hint, shifted their premises from Manimajra, Chandigarh to Sector 35, Chandigarh in first week of Jan., 2019.  As it was not convenient for the complainant to reach for fitness training at the newly shifted centre of OPs at Sector 35, Chandigarh, so a request for refund of the amount has been made to OPs, which they illegally declined.  Hence, this complaint.

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case as well as payment so made by complainant’s father, stated that as the complainant was satisfied with the services of OPs, therefore, he further purchased a continued treatment for weight loss on 26.11.2018.  It is stated that the complainant had to come present on regular basis for the treatment and had to continue strict diet for desired results, but he did not follow his diet as per the terms of the treatment. Stated that per treatment chart, the complainant was being provided appropriate treatment, but after one sitting, when he came for further treatment, then due to unhealthy & uncontrolled diet, the weight of the complainant was increased whereas it should have been reduced.  It is stated that the merging of the office of OPs was already under process and it was well within the knowledge of the father of complainant and that is why, he has been given another offer at discounted rate, which he accepted for an amount of Rs.29,498/-.  It is pleaded that it is known to complainant that Ops are closing their Manimajra Office and further services shall be continued from its main office at Sector 35, Chandigarh and the message circulated to the customers was just a follow-up in the process of intimation to this effect.  It is also pleaded that it is the specific condition of the OPs that no money will be refundable by the company on closure of the centre due to force majeure circumstances or other causes beyond the control of the company. Denying other allegations, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by complainant controverting the assertions made by OPs in their reply.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The issue involved in the present complaint is not qua non-achievement of the desired results as agreed between the parties.  It is the case of the complainant that he could not avail the agreed services of the OPs due to their shifting of premises/centre from Manimajra, Chandigarh to Sector 35, Chandigarh.  It is the stand of the complainant that the services of the OPs were hired by paying an amount of Rs.38,000/- and further continued by paying another amount of Rs.29,500/- only on the pretext that the premises where the OPs were earlier functioning was within the approachable limits of the complainant and as the OPs, in between the package period, shifted their centre from Manimajra to Sector 35, Chandigarh, hindered the whole purpose of the contract/package programme availed by the complainant.   

 

7]       In defence it is the stand of the OPs that they duly informed the complainant beforehand about the likeliness of change/shifting of their business premises at the time when the complainant availed the second package in continuation to the first one by making further payment of Rs.29,500/-.

 

8]       The OPs took the stand that the complainant, after having due knowledge about their shifting, paid the subsequent amount and also agreed to the terms & conditions of package, which clearly states that no money will be refunded by the company on closure of centre due to force majeure circumstances or other causes beyond the control of the company.  In continuation, the OPs took the stand that the complainant availed the services of the OPs till 18.1.2019 and very less period was left for which he could not avail the pacakage services and also claimed to have offered alternate packages to the complainant for the left over period.   

 

9]       The thorough perusal of the record reveals that all the pleas taken by the OPs are bundle of lies and not to be believed as gospel truth. There is no record which shows that the OPs made aware the complainant or his father about their plan of shifting of the premises while he was provided further (second) package in continuation of the first one.  Had he been intimated/informed beforehand, he would not have opted for the subsequent pacakage.  Further, it is also wrong on the part of the OPs to state that till 18.1.2019, their centre was functioning at the earlier premises (i.e. at Manimajra Branch) and thereafter they shifted to Sector 35, Chandigarh, whereas Ann.C-10 dated 3.1.2019 shows that they informed the complainant that their centre is going to close from 7^th January.  They wrongly stated in their reply that after 4.1.2019, the complainant himself has not attended their centre to avail the package facilities, whereas they have already intimated the complainant on 3.1.2019 that their centre is going to close from 7.1.2019. 

         The another stand of the OPs that the complainant has agreed to the terms & conditions, is also not justifiable as the OPs have not placed on record any of the document proving force-majure circumstances or any reason beyond the control of the company forcing them to shift the premises to another area.  If it is presumed for the sake of arguments that the complainant is bound by terms & conditions, it is only in case of force majure or any other circumstances beyond the control of the OPs which forced the OPs to shift their premises. Since there is no force majure or any other circumstance justifying their shifting of premises, so there is no reason for the OPs to retain the amount of second package provided to the complainant.  Since the package was availed for losing committed weight and the complainant has not even achieved half of the committed result. The deficiency in service on the part of OPs is writ large. 

10]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been proved.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties with directions to refund the amount of second package i.e. Rs.29,500/- to the complainant.  The OPs are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental agony & harassment, along with litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10000/- to the complainant apart from the above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th August, 2021                                                                                                                                                              sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER