State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Nillo Dhawan W/O. Atul Sharma vs The Body Line Beauty & Body Care Pvt. Lt on 1 August, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1182/2013 ( Date of Filing : 02 Aug 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 06/07/2013 in Case No. CC/369/2013 of District Bangalore 1st & Rural Additional) 1. Mrs. Nillo Dhawan W/o. Atul Sharma Aged about 31 years, R/at No. 14, 2nd Floor, 1st Main, 1st Stage, 3rd Cross, Vrindavan Layout, Off. Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560076 . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Body Line Beauty & Body Care Pvt. Lt Registered Office at No. 224, 2nd Floor, Above food World, Arekere Gate, IIM-B Post, Bangalore 76 Rep. by its Managing Director / Directors . 2. K.S. Dushyanth, Managing Director The Body Line Beauty & Body Care Pvt. Ltd. R/at No. 224, 2nd floor, Above Food World, Arekere Gate, IIM-B Post, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560076
. 3. Manager Pragathi Gramin Bank
Head Office
Bellary -583 103
...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 01 Aug 2024 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing :02.08.2013
Date of Disposal :01.08.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:01.08.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R) Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL No.1182/2013 Mrs. Nillo Dhawan W/o Atul Sharma Aged about 31 years R/at No.14, 2nd Floor 1st Main, 1st Stage 3rd Cross, Vrindavan Layout Off Bannerghatta Road Bangalore-560 076 (By Mr D.Srishaila, Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Body Line Beauty and Body Care Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered Office At 224, 2nd Floor, Above Food World Arekere Gate, IIM-B Post Bangalore-76 Represented by its Managing Director/Directors
2. Mr. K.S.Dushyanth Managing Director The Body Line Beauty and Body Care Pvt. Ltd., R/at No.224, 2nd Floor Above Food World Arekere Gate, IIM-B Post Bangalore-76 Respondents (By Mr. N B Reddy, Advocate for R1 and R2)
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 06.07.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.369/2013 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Forum.
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 06.07.2013 passed in CC No.369/2013 does call any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. The Complainant, a woman, aged about 35 years, had raised a Consumer Complaint against OPs to return a sum of Rs.42,248/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of payment till realisation and sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further she has sought direction against OPs to discontinue the unfair trade practice, to cease the hazardous machines and to desist from offering services, which are hazardous, in nature to General Public. Further she had sought to issue direction to corrective advertisement at their cost for issuing such misleading advertisement.
5. According to Complainant, OP has not provided assured services; as a result her weight was not changed from 71 kgs even after visited OPs hospital in 3rd week of January 2013. Thus, her grievance would be weight was not reduces as promised by OP.
6. OPs have contested the complaint case. In view of rival contentions of the respective parties, the District Forum found Complainant did not placed any secondary opinion of the doctor to consider her grievances, in order to attribute negligence or to hold OPs 1 and 2 have rendered deficiency of services. It is found from enquiry that the complainant being educated has not resort to the internet to know about Ops before undergoing the weight loos procedures. Further to be noted herein the complainant has not examined any competent witness to hold that Ops have rendered deficiency of services. It is therefore her complaint came to be dismissed by the DF, which in our view does not call for any interference. Hence, proceed to dismiss the Appeal with no order as to costs.
7. Return the LCR forthwith to the District Commission.
8. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned.
Lady Member Judicial Member *s [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER