Delhi

West Delhi

CC/19/30

BABITA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BODY CLINIC - Opp.Party(s)

23 Dec 2021

ORDER

CASE NO. 30-19

IN THE MATTERS OF:-

 

 

BABITA RANI 

H. NO-64, ESIC HOSPITAL COLONY,

6^TH FLOOR, BASAI DARA PUR,

NEW DELHI-110015

MOBILE NO- 9818019416                                                                                                   ……COMPLAINANT                                   

 

VERSUS

1. THE BODY CARE ,

SLIMMING AND BEAUTY CLINIC

A-15, VISHAL ENCLAVE, RAJOURI GARDEN,

NEW DELHI - 110027……OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

         Coram:                                                                               

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

Date of Institution: 22.01.2019

Date of Judgement Reserved:21.12.2021

Date of Order :23.12.2021

 

Order by: Ms. Richa Jindal (Member)                                                                                 Dated: 23-12-2021

 

ORDER

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant booked a treatment for 5 kg weight loss and 5 spot reduction with the OP after paying an amount of Rs. 12000/- within the time period of one and half month in the month of july, 2018. When the treatment did not give suitable result, then she was adviced to take advanced cryo for Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant made a part payment of Rs. 10,000/- on 16.08.2018. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that even after taking the advance cryo, she did not get any result. Feeling aggrieved by the deficiency in service requested to return the full amount to the tune of Rs. 22,000/- paid by her. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that a deficient service has been sold to the complainant for which she claims Rs. 1,50,000/- (one lakh fifty thousand) as compensation along with refund of Rs. 22,000/- paid by her for the services of weight loss . Being aggrieved by the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint before this District Commission in which court notice was issued to the OP on 23.01.2019 and even after receipt of the notice, OP did not appear before the Commission and hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.07.2019, Complainant filed ex-parte evidence on 10.10.2019, thereafter final arguments were heard on 21.12.2021 and order was reserved.
2. We have carefully considered the arguments of the complainant as well as the documents on record and are of the considered view that the complainant has not raised any grievance with OP to the effect that no written correspondence or any document except receipt to prove her version mentioned in the complaint, although she stated in her complaint that she did not get desired result even after spending of Rs. 22,000/- but she did not file any documentary evidence to prove that whether she lost weight due to the treatment or not. Further, she did not file any document showing her request to refund the amount paid by her. The Hon’ble National Commission in Pushpa Bhutani v/s HUDA Hissar (2006)3CPR239(NC) clearly held that complaint can not be allowed if complainant is unable to prove his averments. This ratio is squarely applicable to the case in hand.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed for want of sufficient proof. Ordered accordingly.

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

Announced on this ___23RD____ day of______DECEMBER____2021