House of Fitness Pvt. Ltd., through 203-204, IInd Floor, Building No.5, Local Shopping Complex, Derawal Nagar, Delhi-110009

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.     Varinder Arora, H.No.3456, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent no.1/Complainant

2.     Anytime India Fitness Pvt. Ltd., Floor Eastern Wing, Tricity Centre, Plot No.28,

…..Respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.1

3.     Anytime Fitness India, 6th Floor, Tower-B, Unit No.601 247 Park, IBS Marg Vikhol (infact Vikhroli)

…..Respondent no.3/Opposite Party No.2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

“In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed. The OPs are directed to refund Rs.8491/- to the complainant. They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and litigation costs. The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several.

This order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above total awarded amount of Rs.13,491/- along with penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 03.12.2012 till its actual payment”.

2.              

3.            

4.           

5.           

6.            

7.           

8.            

9.           th

10.         th House of Fitness Pvt. Ltd., through 203-204, IInd Floor, Building No.5, Local Shopping Complex, Derawal Nagar, Delhi-110009, by the complainant. It is also evident, from Annexure A-4 that it wasAnytime Fitness, having its Corporate Office at6th Floor, Tower-B, Unit No.601, 247 Park, IBS Marg, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai 400 083/Opposite Party No.2, which charged a sum of Rs.8,491/-, from the complainant, as membership fees, for a period of 10 years plus (+) one month fee. Since the appellant/House of Fitness Pvt. Ltd., through 203-204, IInd Floor, Building No.5, Local Shopping Complex, Derawal Nagar, Delhi-110009, was not a party to the complaint, and the same (complaint) was only accepted against Opposite Parties, it could not be said that the appellant was, in any way, aggrieved against the order, passed by the District Forum. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant, in our considered opinion, is not maintainable.

11.          

12.        

13.        

14.        

15.        

16.        

Pronounced.

September 4, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg