Delhi

East Delhi

CC/406/2018

MITI SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SWAMI PARMANAND PRAKRITIK - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 406/18

 

Ms. Mili Saini

D/o Shri J.P. Saini,

R/o F-22, Swati Apartment,

IP Extnesion, New Delhi

                                                               ….Complainant

Vs.

         

Swami ParmanandPrakritik Chikitsalaya

Yoga Awam Anusandhan Kendra SPCC

(Through the Trustee/ CEO/ President)

Shanti Marg, Narwana Road,

Near Mangalam Red Light, West Vinod Nagar,

New Delhi

                                                                                    …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 15.12.2018

Date of Order: 27.03.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

Order

This complaint has been filed by Ms. Mili Saini against Swami Parmanand  Prakritik Chikitsalaya Yoga Awam Anusandhan Kendra (SPCC) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The facts in brief are that complainant Mr. Mili Saini paid an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to Swami Parmanand  Prakritik Chikitsalaya Yoga Awam Anusandhan Kendra SPCC for Yoga class and          Rs. 8,000/- for Gym on 15.11.2017 through credit card to stay fit and get reliefs from Yoga classes as well as from Naturopathy/ Gym. She has stated that due to some personal reason, she could not join class for some days and after some days she went to the OP Kendra to join classes, but their official did not allow her to sit in Yoga class as well as Gym. They demanded more amount from her. On the next day her parents contacted OP official and requested them to return amount of Rs. 10,000/- or adjust the same for further classes as it was complainant’s hard earned money. However, they refused. She sent a legal notice through his counsel on 19.02.2018, which was received by them. One of their person called the counsel of the complainant on his mobile number, but due to some work the counsel called the official of the OP to call later on but thereafter the OP did not call the counsel for complainant.

The complainant have stated that she feels cheated by the act and behaviour and way of working of the OP and their staff has intentionally never repaid nor extended any term of the Yoga and Gym class to the complainant. They have committed an offence with intention to deceive the complainant knowingly and intentionally and cheated the complainant of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, she has prayed for refund of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum; Rs. 75,000/- alongwith interest @12.75% per annum towards damages pains, harassment and agony and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Heard on admission

It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for Complainant, that contents of the complaint makes out a case under the Consumer Protection Act and there was deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

Before looking to the contents of the complaint as to whether they make out a “complaint” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a look has to be made to the definition of complaint, which has been defined under Section 2 (1) (c) as “complaint” means any allegation in writing made by a complaint that-

(i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by [any trader or service provider;]

(ii)…..

(iii) [the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him] suffer from deficiency in any respect;

(iv)…..

(v)…..

(vi)…..

          From a bare reading of Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act, there must be allegation in writing made by complainant in respect of unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider or the service hired or availed or agreed to be hired or availed suffer from any deficieny in any respect. It means that to constitute a complaint there must be allegations that there was an unfair trade practice or there was deficiency in the service hired.

To ascertain whether the contents of the complaint make out a case under the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint as a whole has to be read. If a look is made to para 2 of the complaint, it is noticed that, it is the case of the complainant herself that she could not attend the classes due to personal reasons. To quote from her complaint para 2 of her complaint is extracted here under:

“Para-2: That due to some personal reasons, complainant could not joined the classes for some days due to some personal reasons and after some days she went to the OP Kendra to join classes but their officials did not allowed her to sit in yoga classes as well as in the Gym and demanded more amount from her. The copy of the said payments including the credit card statement are annexed as “Annexure-A” for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Forum. That on next day her parents contacted OP officials and requested them to return the amount of Rs. 10,000/- or adjust the same for further classes as the same is complainants’ hard earned amount but their officials refused the requests of complainant’s parents.

          Further, in para 4 of the complaint she has stated that she was cheated by the act and behaviour of OP. She has further stated that OP have committed an offence with intention to deceive the complainant. Para 4 of her complaint is extracted hereunder:

“Para-4: That the complainant feels cheated by the act and behaviour and way of workings of the OP and their staff in this matter as they intentionally never repay nor they extended any terms of the Yoga and Gym classes to the complainant. The complainant cheated by the act and by the hands of the OP and had lost her hard earned income of Rs. 10,000/-”

“Para-5: That the OP has committed an offence with the intention to deceive the complainant knowingly and intentionally and cheated the complainant.”

          Thus, from the extracted paras firstly, it comes out that complainant could not join classes due to her personal reasons and secondly, OP have committed an offence with intention to deceive the complainant knowingly and intentionally and have cheated her. There is no allegation in the complaint that there was any unfair trade practice or there was any deficiency in their service, which was agreed to be availed. On the contrary the allegations made in the complaint point out towards the offence of cheating. Therefore, the contents of the complaint are not squarely covered under the definition of “complaint” under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act.

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complaint made by the complainant does not fall under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, her complaint is not admitted and stands rejected. There is no order as to cost.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

      (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                   (SUKHDEV SINGH)  Member                                                                  President