07 June 2024 Consumer Complaints >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Consumer,Product Service Liability >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A consumer has challenged a State Commission order in a case concerning a squash coaching program offered by a gym. The dispute centers on alleged deficiencies in the program and the amount of fees the consumer is entitled to recover.

Background:

The consumer joined an "Advanced Squash Coaching Programme" offered by the gym and paid Rs. 26,986/- for eight months of training. However, the consumer claimed the program fell short of expectations. Allegations included unqualified coaches and frequent absences by coaching staff. Dissatisfied with the service, the consumer filed a complaint seeking a full refund of the coaching fees.

Lower Court Decisions:

The initial complaint filed with the District Forum was dismissed. The District Forum found the consumer failed to provide evidence of deficiencies in the coaching program. The consumer appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission partially allowed the appeal, acknowledging deficiencies in the program but only awarding compensation for missed sessions and inconvenience caused.

Consumer Seeks Full Refund:

Unhappy with the State Commission's order, the consumer filed a revision petition with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The revision petition argued that the State Commission erred by not granting a full refund of the coaching fees. The consumer contended the program's deficiencies rendered the coaching services practically non-existent.

Gym Argues Eligibility and Service Consumption:

The gym, in its defense, argued that the coaching program was designed for junior players and the consumer participated despite not meeting the eligibility criteria. Additionally, the gym pointed out that the consumer availed of coaching services for some time and therefore cannot claim a full refund.

Conclusion:

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ultimately dismissed the revision petition. The Commission found the State Commission's order to be legally sound and well-reasoned. The National Commission highlighted its limited revisional jurisdiction, which only allows intervention in cases of legal errors or material irregularities by the State Commission. In this case, the Commission determined the State Commission's partial refund order was justified considering the consumer had partially consumed the services.