Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/21/2016

Arvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Club Mahindra Holidays - Opp.Party(s)

Shiv Kumar Adv. & Vishal Kumar Adv.

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	21 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	7.1.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	17.2.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Arvinder Singh s/o Davinder Singh r/o H. No. 1205, Sector 21B, Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  Club  Mahindra Holidays, through its Managing Director, Mahindra Towers 2^nd floor, 17/18, Patullos Road, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002 (Tamil Nadu)
2. The General Manager, Club Mahindra Holidays, Mahindra Towers 1^st floor, ‘A’ Wing Dr. G.M. Bhosle Marg, P.K. Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai 400 018.
3. The Manager Club Mahindra Holidays SCO 68 & 69, 2^nd floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.
4. The Manager, Club Mahindra Holidays SCO 411-412, 1^st floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

Present    

 

Complainant in person.

 

Sh. J.S. Bhatia, Adv. for OPs.

 

       

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

     In brief, the complainant on the allurement of the OPs became member of their club and paid Rs.27,500/- through his credit card on 2.8.2011. and was issued Certificate of membership on 16.8.2011  vide membership ID NO.2360754
(Annexure C-2). After becoming member, the complainant requested the representative of the OPs to arrange booking in the resorts for a couple of days in the month of January, 2012, which was agreed to.  It is pleaded that as per advice of the OPs, the complainant paid Rs.2,43,611/-  till 7.6.2012 as detailed in para 5 of the complaint but the OPs did not provide the complainant any facility to enjoy the holidays. In February, 2012 the complainant again requested the OPs for booking of the resort but the turned down the same on the ground of non availability. Thereafter, the complainant again in June 2012 but his request was again turned down on the same ground.  It is alleged that despite paying a hefty amount the OPs did not keep their promise. When the OPs showed their inability to book the resort as asked by the complainant, the complainant asked for refund of the amount  by visiting the OP at Chandigarh  on numerous occasions i.e. 13.8.2012, 5.4.2013, 10.11.2013, 22.3.2014, 10.4.2015 but they refused to refund the same. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, the complainant served legal notice dated 15.9.2015 upon the OPs but in vain. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed for refund of Rs.2,43,611 alongwith compensatory cost and litigation expenses.

 

2. The Opposite Party in its reply while admitting the factual aspect of the case took preliminary objection  that the complaint is barred by time  as the complainant sought cancellation of membership and refund on 20.6.2012, thus if the complainant was aggrieved then could have filed the complaint within two years from the date of said request. It is stated that the complainant purchased white studio membership by signing membership contract and making down payment of Rs.27,500/- and further Opted to 12 EMI plan of Rs.20,625/- each against the membership cost of Rs.2,75,002.  It is denied that the complainant made request for booking of holidays in the month of January & February, 2012 nor he produced on record any such document. Howerver, it has been admitted that the complainant  made booking in the month of June 2012 but that was in excess of his entitlement. It is further pleaded that the complainant had only paid Rs.2,33,750/- and not Rs.2,43,611/- towards the membership fee.  The payment of Rs.9681/- was paid towards Annual Subscription Fee which is beyond membership fee and the same is required to be paid towards upkeep and maintenance of the resorts and for adding up of new facilities for the members.  It is further pleaded that as per membership contract containing binding contractual stipulations between the parties, refund is permissible in terms of membership contract only and not otherwise.  In the event of cancellation after rescission period of 10 days, admission fees consisting of 60% of total membership fees is non-refundable, only entitlement fees which forms 40% of the total membership fees is refundable which is subjet to applicable deductions. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3. The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party made in the reply.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.
6.     The complainant got membership of club Mahindra Holidays on 2.8.2011 vide membership ID NO.2360754. He has paid Rs.2,43,611/- till 7.6.2012 to the OPs but despite his requests,  the OPs have not arranged any holiday resort for him so far.
7.     Under the compelling circumstances the complainant requested the OPs for refund of his amount and visited their office on 13.8.2012, 5.4.2013, 10.11.2013, 22.3.2014, 10.4.2015 but despite legal notice dated 15.9.2015 the OPs have not refunded the amount nor have arranged any holiday trip at any resort for the complainant.
8.     The OPs admittedly have received amount of Rs.2,43,611/- in 2012 but failed to comply with their part of the contract in failing to arrange any holiday trip till date i.e. 2017 which amounts to breach of trust. The OPs have been proved to be deficient in service and as such cannot be permitted to usurp the hard earned money of the public. 
9.     The complainant is trying his best to get his amount returned from the OPs but in vain.  On account of failure on the part of the OPs in refund of the amount especially when the membership of the club is in subsistence, a recurring cause of action accrued to the complainant to claim back his amount from the OPs and as such the present complaint is found to be maintainable. The judgments referred to in the written statement filed by the OPs are distinguishable and squarely not applicable to the facts in issue in the present complaint.  
10.     Keeping in view the above facts, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs to refund Rs.2,43,611/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11.     In case, the above order is not complied within the stipulated period  the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount from the date of filing of this complaint till payment.   
12.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17.2.2017

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER