STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA No. 177 of 2015
AGAINST
CC NO.616 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD
Between :
Kaushik Roy,
House No. 524, Mayuri Marg,
Begumpet, Secunderabad – 500 016 .. Appellant/complainant
And
- Country Vacations,
Rep. by the Managing Director
Himayatnagar,
H.No.3-6-367/368/369
3rd floor, Skill Spectrum Building
Liberty X roads, Himayatnagar,
Hyderabad – 500 029.
- Country Vacations, The Managing Director,
Central Customer Care,
3-6-12/13, 4th floor, A1-Samad Building,
Above Universal Bakers,
Himayatnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029.
- Country Vacations, The Managing Director
308/309, Connaught place
Bund Garden Road,
Opp. Tata Management Centre,
Pune – 411 001 .. Respondents/opp. parties
Counsel for the Appellant/complainant : M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents/opp.parties : M/s. S. Rajesh Jaiswal
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Thursday, the Seventh Day of September
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant to set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 made in CC No. 616 of 2012 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainants, in brief, is that he took membership bearing No.CVPU1CLUB5LB94317 from the opposite parties in July, 2011 by paying an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and enrolled at their Pune Branch. The opposite parties made a lot of false commitments and they do not respond to the queries. They still not able to enjoy the privileges and services of the opposite parties due to their non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Due to this apathetic, unprofessional and shady conduct by their employees, he faced immense trouble and agony and being unhappy with the service meted out to him and hence he wants to cancel his membership. The opposite parties have inflicted enormous amount of mental agony and financial loss on him. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to direct the opposite parties to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to him, to annul the membership and refund the amount with interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental agony and strain and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
4) The opposite parties, while admitting the membership of the complainant at Pune, Maharashtra by entering into an agreement with the complainant on 05.10.2011 and later it was transferred to Begumpet, Hyderabad on 31.08.2012 on his request, contended that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant and his wife were issued membership cards of their country club. It is for them to utilize the facility available at Country Club at Begumpet. Hyderabad. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant has no right to cancel the said agreement nor he is entitled for refund of amount along with interest and compensation. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit along with written arguments and got marked Ex.A1 to A- 6 and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit but no documents are marked. The Opposite party field a Memo requesting the District Forum to treat their EA as written arguments Heard both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8) Counsel on both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard the counsel on both sides.
9) The points that arises for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant is the holder of membership of respondent/OP. 3 in question at Pune, Maharashtra, initially, under Ex. A-1 and subsequently it was transferred to Begumept, Hyderabad on 31.08.2012.
11) The dispute is with regard to cancellation of the membership of the appellant/complainant with the opposite parties and for refund of the amount from them.
12) (i ) The main contention of the appellant/complainant is that he recently married and he has planned to enjoy his honey moon trip at Kovalam and Kodaikanal and asked the respondents/opposite parties through e-mail on 23.07.2012, for which, the respondents/opposite partied replied on 23.07.2012 by way of e-mail stating that he does not have to pay any thing when he visit their own property within India but if he visit any of its tie up and associate properties has to pay the utility tax. In support of his contention he filed e-mail correspondence under Ex. A-2. However, due to some reasons, he booked resorts of the respondents/opposite parties at Kochi on 31.07.2012. But the said resorts are in very pathetic condition and rooms allotted to him are in very bad condition. There was no canteen maintained by them also no food. He was upset due to their act and returned back to Kochi city and booked a hotel on his own expenses. When he informed the customer care to cancel the booking, he was informed that it is not possible and deducted the allotted 5 days holiday for that year. In support of his averment, he filed photographs under Ex.A6 showing the condition of the resort.
(ii ) On the other hand, the respondents/opposite parties rebutted the same arguing that there is no allegation in the complaint that the appellant/ complainant has gone for holiday to Kerala along with family to opposite party resort and the same was not maintained properly. They further argued that the required facilities are available at their club and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part. Further, they argued that as per the terms and conditions, the appellant/complainant has no right to cancel the said agreement nor he is entitled for refund of membership fee.
(iii) Ex.A2, e-mail correspondence shows that there is correspondence between the parties to go to Country vacations at Kovalam and Kodaikanal but not with regard to Kochi. The opposite parties did not deny the Ex.A-2 e-mails.. The respondents/opposite parties argued that the appellant/complainant did not take the plea in the complaint that he has visited their resort at Kochi, Kerala and a perusal of the complaint supports their contention. However, they have not denied the photographs under Ex.A-6 filed by the appellant/complainant do not belong to their resorts at Kochi resort. It is not the case of the respondents/opposite parties that they did not deduct the allotted 5 days holiday for that year from the membership of the appellant/complainant. If the appellant/complainant did not visit their resort at Kochi, how could they deduct 5 days holiday vacation for that year as alleged. The appellant/complainant personally filed the complaint without any legal back ground, so that, he may not be able to present the complaint as per due procedure of law. In addition to that, the appellant/ complainant failed to prove that he booked a hotel at Kochi along with the details of the hotel incurring expenditure and duration of time spent there. He did not place any bills that were issued by the said hotel, if any. He did not choose to file the travelling tickets that would show his journey to Kochi, Kerala and vice-versa. We have perused Purchase agreement for Club and vacation Membership under Ex.A-1, which, supports the contention of the respondents/opposite parties that “ the Membership fee is non-refundable under any circumstances and the Membership fee is not a deposit “ . Both parties should abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Except claiming refunding of the amount, the appellant/complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties by adducing supportive evidence.
13). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/complainant and the respondents/opposite parties, this Commission is of the view that the appellant/complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly.
14). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 07.09.2017.
