Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/323/2011

Kulwinder Singh S/o Bhula Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

VLCC Health Care Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Sangwan

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                           Complaint No. 323  of 2011.

                                                                                           Date of institution: 08.04.2011

                                                                                           Date of decision: 19.02.2016.

Kulwinder Singh aged about 32 years son of Shri Bhula Ram, resident of village Khaira, District Kurukshetra.    

                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                            Versus

 

VLCC Health Care Limited, 137-P, D.S.C., Opposite Hydel Colony, Yamuna Nagar through its Director.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …Respondent.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. J.K.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent.         

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Kulwinder has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant wanted to get loose his weight and as such he approached the Blooming Zone (franchisee of VLCC Health Care Ltd.) i.e. respondent ( hereinafter referred as OP) who assured the complainant that within a period of 3 months his weight would be lost up to 5 Kg and his waist width would also be reduced up to 3 inch. On the assurance of the OP the complainant got deposited a sum of Rs. 3000/- vide bill No. P00003975 and took package No. 101231001 on dated 28.1.2011 and regularly visited the Health Care Centre. The complainant followed all the guidelines issued by the Op but after three (3) months, complainant was shocked to know that neither the weight of the complainant was lost nor his waist was reduced as per representation and assurance of the OP. So, the complainant number of times contacted the OP and requested them to return his money charged by them but the OP did not listen the genuine request. Besides this, complainant suffered financial loss on account of Rs. 200/- per day of transportation charges for three (3) months by coming from his residence Ladwa to Yamuna Nagar. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 3000/- alongwith a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses etc. Hence this complaint.       

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable, no relationship of consumer and supplier, no locus standi and estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and on merit all the allegations were denied being wrong and incorrect. However, it is admitted that complainant deposited Rs. 3000/- on 28.01.2011. It has been further mentioned that after joining the OP, the weight of the complainant has reduced by 3 Kg. and 100 grams and his waist was also reduced by 3 inches during the session. The complainant was given the diet chart which he did not follow completely. The complainant is non veg. and he had been advised to abstain himself from non veg edible items but he did not do so. If he remained absent and discontinued of his own in attending the workouts and the therapy. These facts have been intentionally concealed by the complainant from this Forum. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and affidavit of his friend Sh. Satbir Singh Annexure CY and copy of bill dated 28.1.2011 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP neither appeared nor filed any evidence, hence the evidence of the OP was closed by court order dated 22.12.2015.  However, at the time of filing of reply Op filed an affidavit of Smt. Sulekha as Annexure RX and therapy chart as Annexure R-1 and R-2 alongwith his written statement.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only case of the complainant is that despite following all the guidelines issued by the OP, neither the weight of the complainant was reduced up to 5 Kg. nor his waist was reduced up to 3 inch within a period of 3 months as per presentation and assurance of the OP. So, the complainant is entitled to get a refund of Rs. 3000/- paid for hiring service alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8.                  On the other hand, version of the Op is that after joining the OP, the weight of the complainant was reduced by 3 Kg. 10 gram and waist was also reduced by 3 inch during the session. The complainant was given the diet chart which he had not followed completely. The complainant is non-veg and he had been advised to abstain himself from non  veg edible items but he did not do so. Even the complainant remained absent and discontinued of his own in attending the workouts and therapy. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP as the OP failed to file any cogent evidence to prove that complainant remained absent and discontinued of his own in attending the workouts and therapy. The OP filed only photo copies of Therapy Chart Annexure R-1 and R-2 from which it is not evident that these documents were related to the complainant as neither the name of the complainant nor any bill number for identification/ correlation is mentioned in these documents. Further, the OPs failed to file any documentary evidence/record of the Jim before the Forum that what was weight and size of waist of the complainant at the time of joining and what was at the time of leaving the centre or in the intervals. The version of the OP that the complainant is non veg and he had been advised to abstain himself from non veg edible items and further he remained absent and discontinued of his own in attending the workouts and therapy is not tenable as the OP has not placed any document on file to prove that ever they advised to the complainant and handed over any pamphlet or chart of diet as stated by the OP in its written statement.  Generally, a person who wants to reduce his weight and size of waist and invest his money for getting some good results, from that it cannot be presumed that he will not follow up all the instructions and guidelines issued by the OP because ultimately he has to bear the expenses for getting the service of the OP. The version of the OP is contradictory as the OP in para No.5 of his written statement has mentioned that the weight of the complainant was reduced by 3 Kg and 100 Gram and waist was also reduced by 3” inch during the session whereas from the perusal of Annexure R-1 and R-2 therapy chart we have noted that reduction in weight has been shown as 4 Kg. Further, from the perusal of this chart Annexure R-1, it is evident that complainant has attended the centre regularly as no absent mark has been marked by the OP in the chart. It was the duty of the OP that they will maintain their accurate record to prove their case. However, the OP might have borne some expenses on account of service provided to the complainant. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the present complaint of the complainant.

10                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP to refund an amount of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 19.02.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT                                             

   

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                    MEMBER.