Bangalore District Commission Holds Body Fit Chairs Liable For Selling Malfunctioning Massager
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Body Fit Chairs liable for deficiency in services for selling a malfunctioning body massager that caused pain and inconvenience to the customer. Body Fit Chairs Pvt. Ltd. provides massage and relaxation products...
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Body Fit Chairs liable for deficiency in services for selling a malfunctioning body massager that caused pain and inconvenience to the customer. Body Fit Chairs Pvt. Ltd. provides massage and relaxation products in India.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant purchased a body-fit foot, calf, and thigh massager from 'Body Fit Chairs' for Rs. 30,000/-. She argued that the massager caused harm when used, specifically hurting the thigh and creating a scarring wound where it was applied. Additionally, she claimed that the massager compressed the toes with excessive pressure. Despite the company's claim that the massager was equipped with a sensor to automatically adjust the pressure according to the requirements, this feature didn't function correctly. Moreover, when the massager was used for more than 20-25 minutes, its performance slowed down, and its efficiency diminished. The Complainant made several representations to the company but didn't receive a satisfactory response.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka (“District Commission”). Body Fit Chairs did not appear for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the Complainant paid Rs. 30,000/- for the purchase of a body-fit foot, calf, and thigh massager on November 21, 2023. The messenger came with a guarantee of four years of free service and, after five years, an exchange offer. Further, the District Commission noted that the company did not participate in the proceedings and remained absent.
Therefore, the District Commission observed that the malfunctioning of the massager, which caused pain, applied improper pressure, and exhibited reduced efficiency, constituted a deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Commission held that the company failed to deliver the promised features and functionality of the product. Consequently, the District Commission held the company liable for deficiency in services.
The District Commission directed the company to either replace the faulty massager with a new one or refund the amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant. Additionally, the company was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- to cover inconvenience and litigation expenses.
Case Title: Dr Sonali R. vs Manager, Body Fit Chairs
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 30/2024
Date of Disposal: 14.06.2024