DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1527 of 2019
Date of institution: 26.08.2019 Date of decision : 06.02.2023
1. Ms. Uma Bansal wife of Shri Naveen Bansal
2. Naveen Bansal son of Shri Des Raj Bansal
Both residents of Flat No.A-314, Platinum Towers, Peer Mushalla, Zirakpur, District Mohali.
…….Complainants
Versus
Ms. Priyanka Pathan (Prop.) Shape up Fitness Hub, SCO 5, 2nd Floor, Near Barrier, Peer Mushalla, Zirakpur, District, Mohali.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Ms. Paramjeet Kaur, Member
Present: Ms. Nisha Rattan vice Ms. Akansha, counsel for the complainants.
None for the OP.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours, will dispose of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCs’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short) on the ground that the CCs took the services of the OP, who is running a gym known as Shape Up Fitness Hub by paying Rs.8,700/- twice. It is averred that the OP provide yoga, dance and fitness facilities through this gym to the customers. The CCs firstly joined the gym on 10.12.2018 for three months i.e. from 10.12.2018 to 10.03.2019 and paid Rs.8,700/-. It is averred that during this time, it was mutually agreed that in case of any prolonged absence, the period of absence by the CCs, the period of absence will be extended by atleast 50% of the equivalent period. It is further averred that due to certain unavoidable health problems, the CCs could not go to the gym during the month of February, 2019. On 11.03.2019, when the CC approached the OP for extension of existing package by 50% absence period for 14 days out of 28 days of absence, the OP extended the initial membership by just 7 days against the entire one month of absence and that too against the payment of next batch fee. It is averred that with ulterior motive, the OP took further payment of Rs.8,700/- for next three months’ duration as the sessions was to start from 18.03.2019 considering 7 days extension time. On 13.03.2019, when the CC arrived 5 minutes late from the stipulated time, the OP insulted the CC publically in rude and harsh manner. The rude behaviour of the OP was directed towards the CC, and hot towards other members, who were also coming. Due to misbehavior of the OP, the CC decided to cancel the future membership, which was to start from 18.03.2019. Accordingly the CCs sought the refund of Rs.8,700/- vide letter dated 15.03.2019 and the OP vide reply dated 17.03.2019 refused to refund the payment. The CCs again sent a letter dated 18.03.2019 regarding unsatisfactory reply of the OP, but no response has been received from the OP.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought the refund of Rs.8,700/- and a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses. Complaint of the CCs is duly signed, verified and is supported by an affidavit.
2. In reply, the OP has raised a number of preliminary objections on the ground that the CCs have not come to this Commission with clean hands, there is no cause of action accrued to the CCs and moreover, there is no ground for misbehavior for late coming as alleged by the CCs to the class. On merits, it is admitted that the OP is running a gym. It is admitted that on 10.12.2018 the CCs took the membership for three months by paying an amount of Rs.8,700/-. It is specifically alleged that the CCs have signed the registration Form, after reading all the terms and conditions and according to the contents of the registration form, fee once paid is not transferable/non refundable/non adjustable. It is specifically alleged that the OP had never promised the CCs that 50% adjustment will be done in any circumstances. It is further alleged that the CCs had attended some classes of exercise in the month of February and most of the days kept themselves out from the gym. Thereafter in the month of March, 2019, the CCs approached the OP and requested to extend the period of expiry as they were unable to attend the gym classes. At that time also the CCs were again told about the terms and conditions, but the CCs kept on requesting to extend the period of gym. The OP as a goodwill gesture extended the period for one week from the date of expiry i.e. 10.03.2019. It is admitted that the CCs made another payment of Rs.8,700/- on 18.03.2019. It is also admitted that the CCs sent a letter for refund of fee already paid for next three months. It is further averred that the OPs were ready and willing to provide the CCs quality services, for which payment was made and thereafter they started claiming refund for which they are not entitled. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to prove their case the CC tendered in evidence affidavit of CC No.1 Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. No evidence has been submitted by the OP.
4. We, have heard learned proxy counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file. None appeared for the OP.
5. It is an admitted fact that the CCs joined the gym for the first time on 10.12.2018 for three months. Copy of receipt is Ex.C-1. However, the CCs have mentioned in Para No.3 of the complaint that it was mutually agreed that in case of any prolonged absence, the period of absence will be extended by atleast 50% equivalent period. Surprisingly, there is no such evidence brought on file by the CCs to prove this specific contention that they were entitled to any kind of extension. It is also admitted fact that the CCs did not attend the gym during the entire month of February, 2020. It is pertinent to mention here that no cogent evidence is brought on record that why the CCs failed to attend the gym in the month of February, 2020 for which they had sought extension from the OP. However, despite the absence of the CCs, the OP extended the initial membership period for 7 days against the month of February, 2020, in which the CCs did not attend the gym. It is also admitted fact that the CCs further subscribed the services of the OP from 18.03.2019 and paid Rs.8,700/- for next three months. In Para No.7 of the complaint, the CCs have alleged that on 13.03.2019 when the CC arrived 5 minutes late, the OP insulted the CC. It is important to mention here that the complaint has been filed by Ms. Uma Bansal and Naveen Bansal, both wife and husband. It is no where mentioned in Para No.7, that whether Ms. Uma Bansal or her husband Naveen Bansal visited the OP and got insulted by the OP in front of their other members. There is no evidence led by the CC to prove this fact. It is no where mentioned that Ms. Uma Bansal got insulted by the OP or her husband Naveen Bansal was insulted by the OP. This shows that the entire story was created by the CCs, to file the present complaint and to take refund of the amount, which they have already paid to the OP. We have perused the complaint as well as evidence submitted by the CCs. The CCs have sought the refund of Rs.8,700/- from the OP. We have minutely perused the reply given by the OP, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the CCs had signed a registration form after reading all the terms and conditions and agreed to the contents of the form before signing the same. It is specifically mentioned in the registration form that fee once paid is non refundable. There is no allegation of the CC that they had not read the registration form properly or the CCs were asked to sign forcibly by the OP. It is pertinent to mention here that the CCs have availed the services of the OP willingly and happily and got the services extended on 18.03.2019 by paying amount of Rs.8,700/-.
6. Since, we do not find any cogent or specific reason for the CCs to withdraw from availing services of the OP, in that event we feel that the CCs are not entitled to any refund from the OP and have failed to prove any deficiency in service.
7 In view of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
February 06, 2023
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
I agree.
(Ms. Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
