Gym told members paying Rs 15,000 can train at any branch, denied access when moved to another city; franchise ordered to pay Rs 19,400

A gym chain that promised its members the freedom to train at any of its branches across India has been pulled up by a consumer commission after one such member was denied entry the moment he actually tried to use that facility in a new city.

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the gym chain and its local franchise to jointly pay the affected member Rs 19,400, after finding that he paid for a service he was never allowed to fully use.

A membership bought on a promise

The complainant had signed up with J.P. Fitness in Pune in January 2020, paying an annual fee of Rs 15,500. The gym's own advertisement had assured members they could train at any of its associated institutions spread across various states in the country. Based on that assurance, the complainant began training at the Pune centre while living there with his mother, who worked in the city.

Circumstances soon changed. His mother's job took her elsewhere, and the complainant moved to stay with relatives in Ernakulam. He informed the Pune gym about the shift, expecting the membership to simply carry over to a branch closer to his new home.

Redirected, then refused
The Pune gym pointed him towards its franchise partner, Gold's Gym in Vyttila, and asked him to approach that branch directly to continue his training. He did exactly that.

What followed was a runaround. The Vyttila branch informed him it was temporarily shut due to covid restrictions and promised to update him once operations resumed. About a month later, when the complainant checked back, the branch had indeed reopened. But instead of letting him train, the franchise sent him back to the parent company in Pune to sort out the matter.

Caught between the two, the complainant says he wrote to the Pune gym several times over email, asking to be allowed to resume his training. According to him, none of those emails led anywhere, and he was never given the opportunity to use the membership he had paid for.

Two gyms, two versions
Before the commission, the two parties offered conflicting accounts. The franchise denied any communication had reached it regarding a transfer, and called the complainant's version of events misleading. It maintained that the dispute over the membership was strictly between the complainant and the parent gym, and that it could not be held responsible.

The parent company, for its part, claimed it had informed the franchise and that the transfer would be completed, though the timeline it offered kept shifting. The commission noted that the complainant could not produce documentary proof of every exchange he claimed took place, including one alleged communication from December 2020.

Commission sides with the member
Despite the gaps on both sides, the commission's conclusion rested on a simpler point. It examined the evidence, including the original tax invoice, email exchanges and payment receipts submitted by the complainant, and found that he had clearly not received the full benefit of the service he had paid for.

The commission held that the responsibility for this lapse could not be pinned on the complainant, regardless of which party was at fault internally for the failed transfer. It ruled in his favour and directed the gym chain and its franchise to jointly and severally refund Rs 14,400, the amount reflected in the original tax invoice, along with Rs 5,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

No separate compensation, but interest kicks in on delay
The commission stopped short of awarding any additional compensation for the inconvenience caused, stating that the circumstances of the case did not call for it. The refund and costs, however, come with a deadline. Both the gym chain and its franchise have been given 45 days from the date of receiving the order to make the payment.

Should they fail to do so, the commission has ruled that the refund amount will start attracting 9 percent annual interest from the date of the order until it is actually paid.

The order was passed on 31 August 2026 by the Ernakulam commission's President D.B. Binu, along with members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N.