The Bangalore District Commission finds Body Fit Chairs responsible for selling a malfunctioning massager.

The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka), with Shivarama K as President and Rekha Sayannavar as Member, found Body Fit Chairs responsible for inadequate service due to the sale of a malfunctioning body massager, which caused discomfort and inconvenience to the customer. Body Fit Chairs Pvt. Ltd. specializes in massage and relaxation products in India.

Summary of Events

The complainant purchased a foot, calf, and thigh massager from ‘Body Fit Chairs’ for Rs. 30,000. She alleged that the massager caused injury when used, particularly affecting her thigh and resulting in a scarred wound at the application site. Furthermore, she reported that the massager exerted excessive pressure on her toes. Despite the company’s assurance that the massager was equipped with a sensor to automatically adjust pressure as needed, this feature failed to function properly. Additionally, the massager’s performance slowed down and became less effective after prolonged use exceeding 20-25 minutes. The complainant contacted the company multiple times seeking resolution but received unsatisfactory responses.

Feeling aggrieved, the complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka (“District Commission”). Body Fit Chairs did not attend the hearings.

Findings of the District Commission

The District Commission observed that the complainant had paid Rs. 30,000 on November 21, 2023, to purchase a body-fit foot, calf, and thigh massager. The product came with a four-year guarantee of free service and an exchange offer after five years. Additionally, the Commission noted that the company did not participate in the proceedings and was absent.

Therefore, the District Commission noted that the massager’s malfunction, causing pain, applying incorrect pressure, and showing diminished efficiency, amounted to a service deficiency under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission concluded that the company did not fulfill its commitment to provide the specified features and performance of the product. As a result, the District Commission found the company accountable for deficient services.

The District Commission ordered the company to either provide a replacement for the defective massager or refund the amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant. Furthermore, the company was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to compensate for inconvenience and litigation expenses.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner  

President Citizens Justice Forum  

YouTube Channel  


WhatsApp +91 99877 43676

Click Here To Read And Download The Order

Cookie Consent with Real Cookie Banner