West Bengal

Kolkata-II(Central)

CC/151/2020

Suchandra Chowdhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

Somali Sinha - Opp.Party(s)

Golam Karim Chowdhury

13 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KOLKATA UNIT - II (CENTRAL)
8-B, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, 7TH FLOOR,
KOLKATA-700087.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/151/2020
( Date of Filing : 10 Sep 2020 )
 
1. Suchandra Chowdhury
P-18, Darga Road, Hasan Tower, 4th Floor, beside Don Bosco, Kolkata, West Bengal-700017.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Somali Sinha
Profex Institute Cadd Centre Kamani Mansion, Roo no.320,3rd Floor, 25A Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Golam Karim Chowdhury, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 13 Dec 2021
Final Order / Judgement

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

               

 

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

 

This is an application u/s.35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.

            Brief facts of the case are that complainant has booked a service package from the OP and she had paid Rs. 17,700/- vide invoice No. 1187 dated 18.01.2018. OP Smt. Somali Sinha purchased the beauty parlor from its previous owner. On account of her health problem, the complainant had to take a break of 06 months from such package and requested the OP who agreed to extend another 06 months. The parlor had been closed without any intimation to the complainant though she had taken only  08 services out of 17. The OP informed her verbally that the service period has been expired. Ultimately, the complainant issued legal notice dated  08.06.2020 to the OP for further service in terms of oral assurance. Having no other alternative, the complainant approached the Commission by way of consumer complaint seeking refund of Rs. 17,700/- including compensation and litigation cost.

The complaint is not resisted by the OP and OP did not come forward to file any WV within the specified period from the date of receiving notice of the complaint.  Thus, the consumer case has proceeded ex parte against the OP vide procedure order dated 28.01.2021.

Complainant Smt. Suchandra Chowdhury filed her E/chief in the form of affidavit. She also filed relevant documents like cash memo dated 18.01.2018, legal notice dated 08.06.2020, discharge summary dated  04.10.2019, bill of Apollo Gleneagles hospital, Kolkata, prescriptions and other medical papers.

We have heard argument on merit. Perused the evidence of the complainant coupled with materials on record.

Upon perusal of the consumer complaint  coupled with evidence of the complainant and cash memo dated 18.01.2018, we find that the complainant paid Rs. 17,700/- to Experience Slimming &  Beauty Centre for service of Dental Facial for 17 sittings. There is no details of sittings regarding its period on the cash memo. Complainant in her complaint petition admitted that she had taken only 08 services out of 17 and the rest services are still due. On perusal of the photocopies of  medical papers, it appears to us that the complainant was admitted to Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata, on 01.10.2019 and also treated at Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre for her B reast Ultrasound. Even the complainant fails to produce any document to establish that the OP Smt. Sonali Sinha has purchased the Experience, Slimming &  Beauty Centre from its previous owner though the legal notice dated 08.06.2020 was duly served upon her.

            Admittedly, the OP did not put in appearance nor she filed WV in response to the complaint. It is well settled that the allegations made in the complaint if not denied is deemed to be correct but it is also well settled that complainant must prove her case on her own leg not on the weakness of the OP. Verbal request of the complainant to the OP regarding extension of remaining sittings is not cogent to prove her allegation made in the complaint. There is no reply on the part of the OP for extension of time of further sittings.

In the above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant is not a consumer under the OP and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.      Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the OP.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed without any cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.