Delhi

StateCommission

FA/677/2013

HEALTH SANCTUARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

RADHA GOYAL - Opp.Party(s)

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision:18.04.2017

 

 

First Appeal No.677/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in Complaint Case No.290/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North West), Delhi)

 

 

Health Sanctuary,

A-1/19, Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi-110029.

                                                              ….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ms. Radha Goyal,

E-16, 2^nd Floor,

Guru Nanak Road,

Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033.

                                                           ….Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

  

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the District Forum (North West) in CC No.290/2011, whereby the appellant/OP has been directed to refund the respondent/complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the cheque amount, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant herein i.e. OP before the District Forum is running a health centre under the name and style of Health Sanctuary Pvt. Ltd., at A-9, Gujrawala Town, Delhi. On 19.11.2010, the respondent/complainant visited the office of the appellant/OP to enquire about their services. It is alleged that she met Ms. Naini who persuaded her to give a cheque of Rs.20,000/- for availing their slimming package. Respondent/complainant sought time for confirming her opinion about availing the service. However, she was told that she will not be able to take the package at discount of 50% unless she deposits cheque on that very date. Believing the version of Ms. Naini, the respondent/complainant gave a cheque bearing No.398256 dated 20.11.2010 to the appellant/OP and told to present the said cheque only on receiving the confirmation from the respondent/complainant as to whether she would be availing the services of appellant/OP or not. It was alleged that on 20.11.2010 the respondent/complainant called up Ms. Naini and told her that she was not interested in taking the package as such her cheque be returned. Thereupon, Ms. Naini told her to collect  the cheque on the next date. It was alleged that respondent/complainant thereafter made number of visits to the office of the appellant/OP but the cheque was not returned. On enquiry from the bank, it was revealed that the cheque had already been encashed by the appellant/OP. Thereupon, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before District Forum for refund of the amount as well as grant of compensation for harassing her.
3. The complaint was contested by the appellant/OP by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that the package was given to her on the terms and conditions printed in the receipt. It was alleged after depositing the money, the respondent/complainant had chosen some other service provider who had lured her for the said package at a lower price and due to said reason she did not turn up. It was alleged that the money could not be refunded to her.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties, Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/OP to pay amount to the respondent/complainant as has been stated above.
5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed.
6. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant today despite awaiting. The last date of hearing was 24.02.2017. On the said date on account of Mahashivratri, this Commission was closed. Prior to that case was listed on 16.08.2016. Even on that day no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant.
7. Respondent states that she has been appearing in the matter regularly and it is the appellant/OP who is not interest in pursuing the appeal. It is also stated that even before the District Forum the appellant/OP was not regular in appearing in the matter. Accordingly, we have heard respondent/complainant and have gone through the file as well as considered material on record.        
8. It is admitted position that the respondent/complainant has not availed the service of the appellant/OP in respect of the package for which she had paid Rs.20,000/- by way of cheque. Respondent/complainant has categorically stated in the complaint that she had not confirmed the package and had told Ms. Naini, the official who was present at the time of booking that only on receiving her confirmation the cheque was to be deposited. Perusal of the record shows that appellant/OP had deposited the cheque without receiving any confirmation from the respondent/complainant about the services offered by appellant/OP.
9. Ld. District Forum has examined the matter in detail and has given its finding. The relevant portion of the findings is as under:

 

•  

 

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- being the amount of the cheque deposited by her with the OP & was encashed by it.

 

2. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant at the hands of the OP.

 

3. Pay a sum of  Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

 

10. We totally agree with the reasoning given by the Ld. Distict Forum. No illegality is seen in the same, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  The record of Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith.

              File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Tri