State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Joginder Jayant & Anrs. vs Sangram Singh on 9 April, 2026
FA/70/2024 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
JOGINDER JAYANT KUMAR & ANR. VS SANGRAM JAI SINGH
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 12.01.2024
Date of Hearing: 06.02.2026
Date of Decision: 09.04.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO. 70/2024
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MR. JOGINDER JAYANT KUMAR,
S/O LT SHRI KABOOL SINGH,
2. MS. RAKHI JAYANT
W/O. MR. JOGINDER JAYANT SINGH,
BOTH RESIDING AT:
R/O SOMDUTT CHAMBER 1,
B-201-211 SECOND FLOOR,
ВНIКАЛ САМA PLACE,
NEW DELHI, DELHI-110029.
ALSO AT:
44F/9, SECOND FLOOR,
RAJINDRA COMPLEX,
KISHANGARH, VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI-110070.
B-179, SHIVALIK, MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110017.
(Through: Mr. Bhuwan Jayant &
Mrs. Reena Gupta, Advocate)
...Appellants
VERSUS
MR. SANGRAM JAI SINGH
R/O B2/88, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI-110029.
...Respondent in person
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 7
FA/70/2024 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
JOGINDER JAYANT KUMAR & ANR. VS SANGRAM JAI SINGH
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: None for the Appellant.
Respondent in person
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per District Commission record are as under:
"Complainant has requested to pass an award directing Mr. Joginder Jayant Kumar - Managing Partner of Evolve Gym and Mrs. Rakhi Jayant -partner of Evolve Gym (hereinafter referred to OP-1 & OP-2 respectively) to refund Rs.24,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment etc. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
The complainant purchased gym membership from the OPs by rendering a cheque of Rs.24,000/- vide cheque No. 561354 with receipt No. 4352 for a period of 16 months starting from 23.12.2019 to 30.05.2021. Copy of the Membership receipt is annexed as Annexure-A. It is stated that the complainant wanted to have membership for three months initially to test but the OP-1 persuaded him to take the membership for 16 months.
In view of the lockdown period, the gym was shut for public at large. Later on, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi permitted Gyms to re-open for the public. The OPs miserably failed to contact the complainant about the operations and functions of the said Gym. In the end of Oct. 2020 the OPs finally informed its members that the Gym shall be re-opened in the month of Nov. 2020 and it was also informed that all members would enjoy the perks of training and same shall be hygienic and safe from all viruses and further added that the membership period of all members will be extended for the time lost during lockdown period.
As the month of Nov. 2020 approaches the Gym still remained closed. The complainant also alleged that when he tried to contact the OPs, they intentionally, deliberately with malafide intention and ulterior motive started threatening in an unparliamentary language. It was DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 7 FA/70/2024 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 JOGINDER JAYANT KUMAR & ANR. VS SANGRAM JAI SINGH stated that the said Gym remained closed and unprofessional conduct had caused great amount of loss both time and money. The complainant also got the legal notice served on the OPs (copy of same is enclosed as Annexure-B). No resolution was provided to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
OPs were proceeded exparte, vide order dated 30.05.2022 of this Commission. Exparte evidence in affidavit and written submissions were filed. Oral arguments were heard and concluded."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 11.07.2023 whereby it held as under:
" This Commission has gone into entire material placed on record. Due consideration was given to the arguments. As stated above, OPs owned and operated a Gym as their business operation i.e. Evolve Gym. As noted above, the grievance of the complainant was that the Gym was never opened after it was shut on account of lockdown imposed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, however, lockdown was lifted vide order Oct. 2020. The OPs duly informed the members including the complainant for re-opening and fully operational of the gym w.e.f. 01.11.2020 with an extension of lost period to the complainant membership.
The complainant alleged that the conduct of the OPs constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In view of the facts and circumstances and discussion, this Commission is of the strong view that there is deficiency in service to the extent of unexhausted period of membership. It is true that OPs could not have opened the Gym in the period of lockdown but when the lockdown was lifted and members were duly informed about re- opening of the Gym and extension of membership period for the period which the Gym was shut on account of lockdown. The complainant has not adduced any evidence with respect to extension of membership and re-opening of the Gym. Since OPs remained exparte despite notices having been served, the averments/contentions so made by complainant remained DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 7 FA/70/2024 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 JOGINDER JAYANT KUMAR & ANR. VS SANGRAM JAI SINGH unchallenged. This Commission has no option but to place reliance on his averments. It is also a fact that the complainant had enjoyed the membership of Gym for period before the lockdown was imposed. Having considered, this Commission directs OPs to pay Rs. 20,000/- within two months failing which interest shall be levied @ 5% per annum till its realisation. The other request is not acceded to."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal, contending that no legal notice was ever received by them from the Respondent prior to filing of the complaint. The counsel for the Appellant contended that the Respondent wrongly showed service of notice dated 27.12.2021 as delivered on 28.12.2021, whereas the Appellants never received the same and the tracking report shows delivery at Vasant Kunj SO, which is not their address. He further contended that the alleged service through speed post and courier was made at an incorrect address to some Carsy Service, 10th floor in Gurugram, which does not belong to the Appellants. He also contended that despite directions for dasti service, no proper service was effected upon the Appellants. Lastly, he contended that the Recovery Certificate was wrongly issued on the basis of alleged service, which was never received by the Appellants. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Commission.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, filed reply to the present Appeal and denied all the contentions of the Appellants. The counsel for the Respondent submitted the Appellants have made false averments regarding non-service of notice, whereas the record clearly shows that notice was duly served through registered post as well as dasti service at the correct address. He further submitted that the Appellants have relied upon irrelevant documents of another case, wherein the notice is shown to have been served at "Carsy Service", which does not pertain to the present case and has been wrongly DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 7 FA/70/2024 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026 JOGINDER JAYANT KUMAR & ANR. VS SANGRAM JAI SINGH placed on record to mislead this Commission. The Respondent also submitted that the Appellants were well aware of the proceedings, which is evident from the record and they failed to appear before the District Commission despite due service. Lastly, he submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.
5. The Appellant has filed the written arguments and reiterated the contentions raised in the present Appeal. The Appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rabindra Singh vs. Financial Commissioner Corporation, Punjab and Ors. in support of its case wherein apex court held that even if there is no express provision, the court has ample jurisdiction to set aside ex parte decree.
6. The Respondent has also filed the written arguments and denied the contentions raised by the Appellants in the present Appeal.
7. We have perused the material available on record.
8. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Appellants were not properly served before the District Commission.
9. The Appellants have contended that they were not duly served in the present case as the alleged service through speed post and courier was made at an incorrect address, i.e., "Carsy Service, 10th Floor, Gurugram" does not belong to the Appellants.
10. On perusal of the record, it is noted that the said address of "carsy service"
pertains to another case bearing No. 222/2021 titled as Navin Kumar Thakur vs. M/s Cars 24 Services Pvt. Ltd., whereas the present case is bearing No. 268/2021 titled as Sangram Singh vs. Joginder Jayant & Anr. Therefore, it is clear that the Appellants have wrongly mixed up the service details of another case with the present case.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 7 FA/70/2024 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
JOGINDER JAYANT KUMAR & ANR. VS SANGRAM JAI SINGH
11. Furthermore, it is evident from Annexure R1/B (Colly.) that the notice was duly sent through registered post vide consignment No. RD020388099IN on 27.12.2021 and delivered on 28.12.2021 at the address of the Appellants at 44F/9, Second Floor, Rajindra Complex, Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, which is also reflected in the Memo of Parties. Moreover, the tracking report showing delivery at Vasant Kunj SO only indicates the concerned sub-office of delivery and does not negate the fact of service. Also, it is clear from the record that dasti service was effected and the orders dated 05.04.2022 and 30.05.2022 clearly record that the Appellants were duly served, despite which they failed to appear before the District Commission.
12. On the other hand, the Appellants have not placed any cogent or reliable evidence on record to controvert the aforesaid service. Mere bald averments regarding non-receipt of notice are not sufficient to rebut the documentary evidence available on record. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the contention of the Appellants regarding non-service of notice is devoid of merit. The District Commission has rightly proceeded ex-parte against the Appellants.
13. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institional area (behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi - 110016.
14. Consequently, the present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
15. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 7 FA/70/2024 D.O.D.: 09.04.2026
JOGINDER JAYANT KUMAR & ANR. VS SANGRAM JAI SINGH
16. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on https://e-jagriti.gov.in for perusal of the parties.
17. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (BIMLA KUMARI) MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced On:
09.04.2026 LR-ZA DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 7