Haryana

StateCommission

A/1122/2017

COUNTRY CLUB AND HOSPITALITY AND HOLIDAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANURADHA GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

PRADEEP SHARMA

18 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.1122 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 18.09.2017

                                                         Date of final hearing: 18.10.2022

Date of pronouncement: 28.12.2022

 

1. Country Club and Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., Corporate Office, Hydrabad.
2. Regd. Off: Amurtha Caste, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500063.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Anuradha Gupta W/o Sh. Arun Gupta, R/o H.No. 71, Sector-10, Panchkula.

2.      Arun Gupta S/o Late SH. Gian Chand, R/o H.No. 71, Sector-10, Panchkula.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Ravi Kant proxy counsel for Ms. Shruti Rathore, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal has been condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.1122 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In short  Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.6 of 2017, which was allowed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant was approached by opposite parties (OPs) through its  authorized persons Rahul Chaudhary by way SMS who provided entry code No.CCIL76761 about promotion scheme at Welcome Hotel Bela Vista, Sector-5, Panchkula for obtaining membership of the OPs. A meeting was held by OPs with complainant on 07.07.2016 at 7.30 PM where authorized persons of OPs namely Aashish, Abhishek & Ahwani were present in the meeting on behalf of the OPs and offered standard package i.e. (i) 7 days 6 night complete package anywhere in Europe as per choice (scheme being valid for one year), (ii) 7 days 6 night complete package anywhere in India as per choice (scheme valid for 3 years), (iii) 3 nights stay in Singapore (scheme valid for 1 year), (iv) 3 nights stay in Dubai (scheme valid for 1 year), (v) 6 nights stay in Bangkok (scheme valid for 1 year) and providing offer to pay the price of the tour through (vi) 24 interest free EMI on deposits (if paid by credit card). On 07.07.2016 at about 10.30 PM, complainant paid Rs.1,75,000/- through HDFC credit card No.5593000600047197. On 08.07.2016, the complainant came to know through message sent by the Ops that there was only one scheme i.e. scheme No.3 for 3 nights stay in Singapore valid upto 06.01.2017 for the period of 6 months only and requested through enclosed letter for refund of entire amount and also seeking cancellation of his membership. After receiving the letter for refund from the complainant, the authorized representative of Ops assured that his grievances would be redressed. Thereafter, the complainant has also made a written request to the Ops for refund of the money but the Ops did not take any step towards refund of the amount. The complainants also sent various reminders through emails, registered post, telephonic calls and even personally visited the office of Ops at Noida and met their official namely Mr.Sachin on 03.09.2016 who assured him that the entire amount would be refunded within a short span but again of no avail. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and hence the complaint.

4.      In its written version, OPs raised preliminary objections with regard to territorial jurisdiction, concealment of facts and cause of action and requested for dismissal of the complaint.  On merits, OPs submitted that on 07.07.2016, the complainant has paid Rs.1,75,000/- towards one-time non refundable vacation charges under the vacation agreement and club membership was given to them free of cost alongwith vacation agreement on the same day. On 07.07.2016 (date of purchasing the membership) “Only Vacations Agreement” was signed by both the parties but by mistake the date was mentioned as 21.07.2016 on the agreement. The plan opted by the complainants were “Blue Studio Season Premium” under which they were entitled to vacation membership only for 30 days. Sales team of the O.Ps explained various benefits, terms and conditions prevail under different plans and schemes with their prices, out of which complainants opted for “Blue Season” vacation membership and entered into Vacation Agreement and detailed list of properties to which the complainants were entitled were clearly mentioned in clause 4 of the agreement. It was never told by anyone much less OPs that scheme was valid if complainants made the payment on the spot through credit card. No request for refund and cancellation of membership was made by the complainants on 08.07.2016. Vide email dated 25.07.2016 OPs replied that they would not be able to refund the membership fee based on personal reasons and alternate remedy was suggested to the complainants that they could transfer the membership fee to any of their family member/friend or acquaintance. This is how complainants had no right to ask for an already agreed non-refundable deposit on false and frivolous grounds because complainants are also equally bound by terms and conditions of the agreement and have no right to claim anything. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Panchkula has allowed the complaint vide order dated 31.07.2017, which is as under:-

“In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the complaint by upholding the grievance made by the complainant and order that:-

The Ops shall refund the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 8^th July, 2016 till the refund comes about.

The Ops shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant; and

The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal.

7.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh. Pardeep Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh. Ravi Kant proxy counsel for Ms. Shruti Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appeal  as well as original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants argued that as per agreement, the vacation charges is non-refundable under any circumstances. That being so OPs have rightly dis-allowed the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant was not entitled for the refund.  Impugned order is patently bad in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that on 07.07.2016, they made the payment of Rs.1,75,000/- through  HDFC credit card on the assurance of the OPs, but, on the next day, the complainants  requested the OPs for refund of the deposited amount, but, they did not pay any heed despite several requests.

10.    Perusal of the record shows that the complainant was not interested in the membership and requested for refund of the deposited amount immediately on the following day itself. The complainants requested the OPs vide letter dated 08.07.2018 for cancellation of membership as Ex.C-2  and refund the amount, but, the OPs did not pay back the deposited amount. As per EX.C-3, the OPs informed  through mail that  they will respond to their request within next four working days, but, still they did not do the needful till date. The plea of the OPs that membership is transferable to any of their own contact and this transfer can happen only once, is not tenable in the eyes of law because primarily the OPs have already sold number of memberships to the public at large so how the respondents can be expected to sell the  membership to anyone.  Moreover as per C P Act 2019 and person having bought anything for a price can be returned and seek refund of the price well within fifteen days. In this case respondents reconsidered their decision to retain the membership of appellant maintained properties out of their own choice. Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint. The learned District Forum had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 31.07.2017.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants-respondents against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

13.              A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

28th December, 2022        Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)