Haryana

StateCommission

RP/17/2018

M/S HOUSE OF FITNESS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAILJA JOON - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS JAIN

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Revision Petition No:       17 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution:           27.02.2018

                                                Date of Decision:             13.03.2018

 

 

 

M/s House of Fitness Private Limited, F-14/1A, 3^rd Floor, Model Town II, New Delhi -110009, through Director.

 

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Mrs. Shailja Joon wife of Sh. Rakesh Joon, resident of House No.02, H.L. City, Sector 37, Bahadurgarh-124507, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                      

         

Argued by:          Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for petitioner.

                            

                              

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          House of Fitness Private Limited-opposite party (petitioner herein) is in revision against the order dated January 23^rd, 2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby application for dismissal of complaint was dismissed.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’.  She did not open the gym within the stipulated period.  She also did not pay the extension fee.  The petitioner terminated the agreement vide legal notice dated August 31^st, 2017. 

3.      The complainant was intended to start a gym cum fitness centre.  An agreement dated August 05^th, 2016 was executed between the parties.   The petitioner vide Franchise Agreement Rider charged Service Fee of Rs.11,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively from the complainant.  In the agreement itself, under the heading ‘Services’, the petitioner stated that they would provide services to the complainant on a monthly basis.  The complainant hired the services of petitioner.  Thus, the petitioner falls under the definition of ‘consumer’.  The District Forum has rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner.  The revision petition is also dismissed.   

 

 

Pronounced 13.03.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK