State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Health Sanctuary vs Deepti Sharma on 16 August, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 16.08.2010 FIRST APPEAL NO.2008/211 (Arising out of Order dated 21.01.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum(South West) Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.483/2007) Health Sanctuary Appellant/Opposite Party, Through its Partner through Mr. Amitabh Kashyap, Ms. Shubi Kamal Hassain advocate. A-1/19, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. Versus Ms. Deepti Sharma, .Respondent/Complainant. W/o Sh. Aseem Sharma, D-1/48, 1st Floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Sh. M.L. Sahni Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi , President(ORAL) The brief facts of the case may be stated below:
1.
The OP is a Beauty Saloon which gives hair removal treatment by laser to its customers. On 22.01.2006, the OP advertised that if someone approaches within two days therefrom, the customer will be granted 50% discount. The complainant approached the OP late on 25.01.2006 yet Dr. Shalini, an employee of OP offered the complainant the discount. She paid the OP Rs.22,000/- for full legs laser treatment and she was given the first treatment and was advised to appear two days thereafter, for the next session. Accordingly she attended, where her legs were shaved, her eyes were closed with cotton and dark glasses, she realized that her eyes had some adverse effect.
2. The OP thereafter asked her to come on 15.02.2006 when Dr. Shalini persuaded her for whole body laser treatment offering her 50% discount. The complainant believing her representation to be true paid Rs.53,447/- to the OP. After two days the complainant felt that there was adverse effect of the laser treatment on her legs. She approached Dr. Shalini and told Dr. Shalini that she has decided not to go with whole body treatment. Dr. Shalini assured to destroy cheque for Rs.53,447/- but OP on 30.01.2006 encashed the cheque. The complainant resisted. The OP, informed her that Dr. Shalini was on leave and would return a week thereafter. The complainant then on 21.12.2006 approached the OP for further hair removal of legs and the staff of the OP informed that the laser machine had broken and they were going to take another machine on rent. The complainant asked the OP to refund her amount paid, which OP refused. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum for an amount of Rs.2,47,447/- towards deficiency in service including the amount paid by the complainant to the OP.
3. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written statement denying all the allegations of persuading the complainant for whole body treatment, and on complainants demamd for returning the cheque. The OP urged that the complainant availed complete service of the OP to her full satisfaction and was seeking the refund of her money at the instance of her parents.
4. The District Forum on consideration of the documentary evidence and the affidavit filed by the complainant which were not controverted by the OP by giving any evidence held that the OP was deficient in service who duped the complainant to pocket her money decreed the claim of the complainant for a total amount of Rs.103447/- including the amount paid by her, and the compensation.
5. That is what brings the appellant OP in appeal before this Commission.
6. None appears for the respondent at the stage of hearing. We have heard Sh. Amitabh Kashyap counsel for the appellant.
7. The finding of the District Forum seems justified. The complainant successfully proved her case by producing cogent evidence documentary and her own affidavit, which the appellant OP has not controverted in any way. The OP has not given even affidavit of Dr. Shalini to rebut her contentions. The District Forum was therefore right in holding the appellant OP guilty for its deficient service and ordering the refund of the amount of the complainant, and also to pay her compensation. The contention of the appellant that damages awarded are exorbitant, the District Forum has exercised its discretion in the facts and circumstances as they are, and we feel disinclined to interfere in the judgment of the District Forum. Appeal dismissed.
8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
Announced on 16th day of August 2010.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (M.L. Sahni) Member Tri