BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 580 of 2018
Date of Institution:30.7.2018
Date of Decision: 18.12.2018
- Mrs. Jasbir Kaur @ Soniya W/o Sh. Gurinder Singh R/o 384-A, Green Avenue, Amritsar
- Mrs.Jasmeet Kinra @ Nina W/o Sh. Inderjit Singh R/o 73-A, Taylor Road, Amritsar
- Mrs. Rashmi Kinra W/o Sh. Navjot Singh R/o 73-A, Taylor Road, Amrisar
- Mrs. Ishveen W/o Sh. Avijit Singh R/o 384-A, Green Avenue,Amritsar
Complainants
Versus
- Wellness Xperts, SCO 22, Ground Floor, B=Block, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Principle Officer
- Ms.Monika Kashyap, Centre Manager, Wellness Xperts, SCO 22, Ground Floor, B-Block, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.Sushil Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh. Rajesh Kashyap,Advocate
Coram:
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms. Rachna Arora, Member
Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
1. Present complaint has been filed by Mrs.Jasbir Kaur, Mrs.Jasmeet Kinra, Mrs.Rashmi Kinra and Mrs.Ishveen under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that opposite parties are running a beauty saloon and make up centre and for their sale promotion issued the special scheme offer by issuing the sale card of Rs. 999/- giving certain facilities to the said card holders. The complainants also purchased the said cards for valuable consideration and are entitled for all the facilities and benefits attached thereto. The complainant purchased the aforesaid card of opposite parties on 29.11.2017 which was valid till 30.6.2018 for the facilities enumerated in the said card including skin facial, cleanup , bleach, laser hair reduction, hair cut, trimming, head massage, manicure, pedicure, arm wax, hair spa, threading etc.etc besides discounts on other facilities.. The complainant purchased the card Sr.No. 179, 133,173,182,124,184,172, 211 and 177 issued by the opposite parties for Rs. 999/- each to get the aforesaid facilities. When the complainants approached the opposite parties for the said offer of skin facial , cleanup , bleach, laser hair reduction, hair cut, trimming, head massage, manicure, pedicure, arm wax, hair spa, threading etc. in the month of March 2018 the opposite parties refused to give the aforesaid facilities to the complainants on the pretext that they have withdrawn the said scheme and further stated that the complainants have availed few of the facilities on the cards issued to the complainants and can’t give further facilities as enumerated in their offer and flatly refused to entertain the complainants. It is pertinent to mention over here that the offers already availed by the complainants were not satisfactory and were not provided in the congenial and customer friendly atmosphere rather in the most casual and careless way and not upto mark and fully unprofessional attitude was displayed. It is worth mentioning here that the attitude and behavior of the opposite party No.2 was very hostile towards the complainants on each and every visit by the complainants and was uncalled for in the civilized society. Opposite party No.2 was too hostile on the visit of the complainants in March 2018 when the opposite parties refused to entertain the complainants and showed them the exit door. The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties in not honouring their commitments and not providing the facilities as promised is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8991/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of payment till realization ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 19.90 lacs be also awarded to the complainants.
(c ) Opposite parties be also directed to pay adequate litigation expenses to the complainants.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per pleadings it has been categorically stated that different cards have been purchased by the complainant but by whom the cards have been purchased and which care has been purchased by complainant No.1 and which service has been taken by her has not been mentioned and to whom the service has been denied and on which date the service has been denied , has not been pleaded and even nothing has been said whether the complainants have any relation with each other or whether they have visited the office of opposite party jointly or severally and on which date has not been pleaded and as such the joint complaint is not maintainable. It was submitted that complainant No.2 Mrs. Jasmeet Kinra had approached the opposite party in the month of May 2018 and had asked for permanent hair reduction but as the said treatment was done to the said complainant in the month of April, so it was not advisable for the said treatment. It is not advisable to have laser treatment for hair reduction within a span of 45 days. Due to the said reason, it was advised to complainant No.2 to not to have the said service. The opposite party is providing the service to their customers for the last many years and many customers had given their reviews about the service of the opposite party, which are attached Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP15. It was submitted that complainant had purchased the cards in the month of December 2017 but they have firstly approached the opposite party in the month of March 2018 and they want to take each and every service on the card within a period of three months to adjust their beneficial services but as the laser treatment cannot be given within a period of three months, so the said service was not advised and due to the said reason the present complaint has been filed. Even the opposite party has made many messages to the cards holders with request to visit the opposite party to avail the service/benefits, copies of the said messages are attached. The complainants want to take the benefits beyond the period which was against the terms and conditions of the card and as such the said services cannot be provided to the opposite party. On merits it was denied that the opposite parties when approached by the complainant for the said offers in the month of March 2018 the opposite parties refused to give the offer facilities to the complainant on the pretext that they have withdrawn the said scheme. Whenever the complainant had approached the opposite party for the offers, the same were duly supplied to the complainant with umost sincerity. It was further submitted that the complainant had given the facilities as per their offer within their time, but the complainant had approached the opposite party after the offer period i.e. 30.6.2018. Even in the said offer period, the complainant had come to the opposite party for services and the same were duly provided. It was denied that whatever offers availed by the complainant were not satisfactory and were not provided in the congenial and customer friendly atmosphere. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that opposite parties , who are running a beauty saloon and make up centre and for their sale promotion issued the special scheme offer by issuing the sale card of Rs. 999/- giving certain facilities to the said card holders. On the allurement of the opposite party through their advertisement, the complainant purchased the aforesaid card of opposite parties bearing Sr.No. 179, 133,173,182,124,184,172, 211 and 177 issued by the opposite parties for Rs. 999/- each on 29.11.2017 which was valid till 30.6.2018 for the facilities enumerated in the said card including skin facial, cleanup , bleach, laser hair reduction, hair cut, trimming, head massage, manicure, pedicure, arm wax, hair spa, threading etc.etc besides discounts on other facilities. It was the case of the complainant that when the complainants approached the opposite parties for the said offer of skin facial , cleanup , bleach, laser hair reduction, hair cut, trimming, head massage, manicure, pedicure, arm wax, hair spa, threading etc. in the month of March 2018 the opposite parties refused to give the aforesaid facilities to the complainants on the pretext that they have withdrawn the said scheme The complainants have availed few of the facilities on the cards issued to the complainants .It is pertinent to mention over here that the offers already availed by the complainants were not satisfactory and were not provided in the congenial and customer friendly atmosphere rather in the most casual and careless way and not upto mark and fully unprofessional attitude was displayed. The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties in not providing the facilities as promised is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice .
5. On the other hand opposite parties have repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainants on the ground that different cards have been purchased by the complainants but by whom the cards have been purchased and which card has been purchased by complainant No.1 and which service has been taken by her has not been mentioned and to whom the service has been denied and on which date the service has been denied , has not been pleaded and even nothing has been said whether the complainants have any relation with each other or whether they have visited the office of opposite party jointly or severally and on which date has not been pleaded and as such the joint complaint is not maintainable. It was submitted that complainant No.2 Mrs. Jasmeet Kinra had approached the opposite party in the month of May 2018 and had asked for permanent hair reduction but as the said treatment was done to the said complainant in the month of April, so it was not advisable for the said treatment. It is not advisable to have laser treatment for hair reduction within a span of 45 days. Due to the said reason, it was advised to complainant No.2 to not to have the said service. It was submitted that complainant had purchased the cards in the month of December 2017 but they have firstly approached the opposite party in the month of March 2018 and they want to take each and every service on the card within a period of three months to adjust their beneficial services but as the laser treatment cannot be given within a period of three months, so the said service was not advised and due to the said reason the present complaint has been filed. Even the opposite party has made many messages to the cards holders with request to visit the opposite party to avail the service/benefits, copies of the said messages are attached.
6. However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not denial the fact that the complainant had purchased the cards for availing the services offered by the opposite parties on 29.11.2017 which was valid till 30.6.2018 ,which included skin facial, cleanup, bleach, laser hair reduction , hair cut, trimming, head massage, manicure, pedicure, arm wax, hair spa, threading etc . The case of the complainants is that when they approached the opposite parties for availing the offer as enumerated in the cards issued to the complainants, in the month of March, 2018, the opposite party refused to give the offered facilities to the complainant on the pretext that they have withdrawn the said scheme. On the other hand the only plea of the opposite parties is that as complainant No.2 Mrs.Jasmeet Kinra had approached the opposite party in the month of May 2018 and has asked the permanent hair reduction but as the said treatment was done to the said complainant in the month of April, so it was not advisable for the said treatment as the said treatment was advisable after a span of 45 days. But however, the opposite parties have not produced on record any document to prove their version that the laser treatment for hair reduction was advisable after a span of 45 days. As such the opposite party admitted that complainant No.2 was denied the service as demanded by her. However, the opposite party remained silent regarding the refusal of services as demanded by the complainants in the month of March 2018 . Moreover it is settled principle of law that in case two plausible views were available, under given set of facts, the court shall be obliged to the view which was favourable to the consumer . Reference, in this regard can be had to “Kulwinder Singh Versus LIC of India” 2007(1) CLT 303 (Punjab) wherein it has been held that “where two views are possible, the one, which favour the consumer should be taken”. However, perusal of cards issued to the complainants fully proves that the opposite parties offered the aforesaid services only for Rs. 999/- which was valid from 29.11.2017 till 30.6.2018. The denial of the opposite parties for providing services to the complainants within the duration of the cards on May 2018, amounts to deficiency in services. As the complainants have approached the opposite party within the offer period i.e. from 29.11.2017 to 30.6.2018, as such the complainants are entitled to the services as mentioned in the cards issued to the complainants and opposite parties cannot deny the same. Moreover it is usually seen that the companies show green pastures to the customers at the time of selling their products and when the time comes to exercise their promise, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the services. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-
“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.
The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.
7. So as the opposite parties have denied the services to the complainants as promised by them , as such the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount as spent by them for the purchase of cards.
8. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 999/- to each of the complainants. As the complainants have been harassed in the hands of the opposite parties, as such the complainants are also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- to each of the complainants. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- to the complainants jointly. Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 18.12.2018
( Rachna Arora ) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Presiding Member
