APPEAL No.515/2013

Date of Filing : 10.04.2013

Date of Disposal :26.08.2022

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:26.08.2022

PRESENT

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.515/2013

1. MrDeborati

M/s. Vibes Beauty Centre

No.253, Ground Floor,

24th Main, 6th Cross,

5^th Phase, J.P. Nagar,

Bangalore 78

2. Head Office / Corporate Office

Customer Care Officer,

M/s. Alankar Slimming and

Cosmetic Clinic Pvt. Ltd.

No. (A), D-5, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi, National Capital,

Territory of Delhi 110016

(By Mrs Jayna Kothari, Advocate)

Appellant

-Versus-

Kanchan Sharma

W/o. Subramani L.N.,

R/at No. 303,

Hibiscus Esteem Park,

Rose Garden Road,

J.P. Nagar, 5th Phase,

Bangalore 78

(By Mr D Murugan, Advocate)

Respondent

-:ORDER:-

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer

Protection Act 1986 by OPs aggrieved by the Order dated 28.01.2013

APPEAL No.515/2013

passed in Consumer Complaint No.1127/2012 on the file of IV

Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru

(for short, the District Forum).

2.

Learned counsel for Appellants/OPs would submit District

Forum directed OP/Appellant to pay Rs.54,000/- along with interest

at the rate of 9% per annum and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation

costs, only on the basis of photos produced by complainant and

which clearly look manipulated, there is no legal basis to believe

such photos.

3. The Appellants/OPs run a beauty and slimming clinic and

provide beauty treatments to its customers. The Complainant visited

their clinic on 05.02.2011 to avail free services of a haircut on a gift

voucher that she had received in a shopping mall in Koramangala.

While she was getting a haircut, their employee noticed that

complainant was suffering from acute acne problems, which if not

treated in time might have aggravated substantially. In this regard

they have suggested the complainant a combination of treatment for

acne and excessive hair growth. This treatment included chemical

peeling for 10 sessions, acne facial for 10 sessions and laser hair

reduction for 14 sessions in all given in two sets of seven sessions.

If the complainant opted for both the treatments and paid upfront

the full cost of both the treatments in whole, the OPs would offer a

discount of about 35% on the total bill amount which is in fact is not

at all disputed.

4. It is not in dispute about payment of Rs.63,974/- on

15.02.2011. The treatment started from 15.02.2011 itself and she

continued the treatment for several months, but was extremely

irregular and kept changing her appointments at her convenience,

which was not advisable, as the sessions should be taken in a

systematic manner. It is not in dispute, she had treated from

APPEAL No.515/2013

15.02.2011 to 24.10.2011 and in all availed 8 sessions of the

chemical peeling treatment as against 10 sessions required and only

5 sessions of laser hair removal as against 14 sessions required and

4 sessions of Sensitive Skin Aroma Veda Treatment as against 10

sessions required. Thus these 3 treatments were done from

15.02.2011 to 24.10.2011, complainant did not have any problem

regarding the treatment in fact on 25.06.2011 she had stated in the

Beauty Record maintained by OPs/Appellants that ‘as of now the

service is giving relax’. Thus considering this record maintained by

the OPs/Appellants learned counsel would submit accepting of such

photographs which are manipulated conveniently is unsustainable in

order to direct refund of Rs.54,000/- has some considerable force,

since the complainant has failed to prove that these photographs

taken eit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document