Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/118

Parminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Club Mohindra Holidays & Resorts Ind - Opp.Party(s)

Surjit Singh Adv.

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 118 dated 25.02.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 02.06.2022.

 

Parminder Singh Pangli aged 32 years son of Darshan Singh, resident of House No.300, Sunder Nagar, Jaipura Road, Doraha (Ludhiana). Mob. No.98550-11011.                                                                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Club Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd., Shop No.32, Ist Floor, Westend Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
2. Sh. Vinay, Brach Head, Club Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd., 504, Block-A, 5^th Floor, Elante Mall Office Suits, Plot No.178-178/A, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.          
3. Amanpreet Singh, Member Relations
4. Mr.Varun, Member Relations,
5. Devika Sharma, the then Sales Executive/Representative, respondents No.3 to 5 employees of Club Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd., 504, Block-A, 5^th Floor, Elante Mall Office Suits, Plot No.178-178/A, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.
6. Sunny Gupta, Member Relationship Officer, Club Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd., Shop No.32, Ist Floor, Westend Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana                                                                                                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Amarbir Singh, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. J.S. Bindra, Advocate.

For OP3 to OP6             :         Complaint against OP3 to OP6 not admitted                                                         vide order dated 02.06.2019.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he is a member of OP company since 2009 having paid about Rs.5,00,000/-  to OP1 against the membership ID 1460890. The complainant was initially provided white studio membership which was later on upgraded to red studio on additional payment of Rs.1.33 Lac. It is further alleged in the complaint that initially the complainant was provided with holidays package of two nights three days. The complainant used the holiday packages of OP1 for 60 nights in different parts of India. However, the complainant had a bad experience at
Snow Peak Resorts Manali in July 2009 as there were no proper services and hospitalities at the said resort. The complainant further suffered bad experience in Kenda Ghat Resort at Himachal Pradesh in 2013. In addition to this, the complainant availed holiday stays at White Meadows Resorts Manali in 2016.

2.                It is further alleged that in the month of July 2017, an employee of OP2namely Devika Sharma called the complainant and offered that if the complainant would give name of one person for obtaining membership of OP, he would be given gift such as Malaysia Cruz Trip, Apple mobile phone, A.C.V.S. Points etc. The complainant asked her to send reply to confirm the offer by email but she started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, said Devika Sharma sent one email from her own personal ID instead of ID of the OP Company. In the said email, the name of the sender was mentioned as Kanika Bhardwaj. Thus, the employee of the OP was trying to defraud the company as well as the complainant. The matter was reported to the office of OP situated at Alante Mall and the forged and fabricated email was also shown to the officials of OP Company but no action was taken nor subsequently the complainant was contacted in this regard though an employee namely Varun assured the complainant of appropriate action.

3.                It is further alleged that eventually the OPs issued five nights stay and some credit vouchers to the complainant. In the month of November 2017, the OPs booked resorts in Rajasthan for the complainant. However, when the complainant along with his wife, son, father-in-law and mother-in-law reached  Jodhpur Resorts, Rajasthan on 03.12.2017, it was found that the resort had been booked by some outsider for marriage purpose and there was no booking for 3^rd December of any member except the complainant. On the contrary, it was assured by OP1 that the location would be occupied only by the members and not outsiders. No person having Club Mahindra membership was present at the resort. There were 38 rooms in the resort out of which 37 rooms were booked for the marriage and the complainant was provided only one room on the third floor of the resort. The complainant informed Amarpreet Singh, an official of the OPs on his mobile who told the Club Mahindra did not arrange the marriage in the resorts. In the evening of 03.12.2017, the marriage started and about 1000 people gathered for the marriage. The persons who had come to attend the marriage were drinking and shouting loudly causing a lot of inconvenience and harassment to the complainant and his family members accompanying him. The complainant tried to contact the officials of the OPs namely Amarpreet Singh and Devika Sharma but they did not pick up the phone. In this regard, the complainant lodged a complaint with SSP, Chandigarh and SSP, Khanna. In this manner, the OPs have defrauded the complainant to give benefit to their employees. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to made to pay a sum of Rs.14,09,000/- which includes membership fee of Rs.2,54,000/-, ASF annually of Rs.1,000/-, food, spa and air ticketing Rs.5,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-. 

4.                Complaint was not admitted as against OP3 to OP6 as per order dated 09.05.2016.

5.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 and OP2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 and OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and is nothing but an abuse of process of law. According to OP1 and OP2, there is no deficiency of service on their part and the complaint has been filed just to harass them. According to OP1 and OP2, the complainant accepted the membership terms and signed the membership application form voluntarily. The complainant opted to subscribe/purchase “White Studio” membership and executed application form dated 27.03.2009 whereby he accepted and agreed to the terms and conditions of the membership. The complainant further signed the ‘Member’s Review for Confirmation of Undertaking”, Clause 14. The complainant made down payment of Rs.25,426/- against membership cost of Rs.2,54,460/- and promised to pay the balance by way of 60 EMIs of Rs.5687/- each. The complainant has defaulted in payment of EMIs on various occasions as is evident from the account/payment statement of the complainant. The complainant has been availing the services of OP Company and was satisfied with the benefits and amenities provided. The complainant upgraded his membership to Red Studio membership in June 2017 by submitting duly signed upgrade form dated 11.06.2017. The complainant further paid Rs.13,378/- towards down payment against the differential membership cost and he was bound to pay the balance cost of membership by way of 12 EMIs of Rs.10,033/- each. The complainant again committed default in making the payment of EMIs towards membership cost. The complainant has availed holidays under special offers in August 2009 and enjoyed 4 nights at Manali from 09.08.2009 to 13.08.2009. The complainant was also provided the enrolment benefits of Resort Credit Vouchers of Rs.3,000/- and 1.5 ton Air conditioner. It has been denied if the complainant suffered any bad experience during the stay at Manali Resorts, Kandghat, Shimla Resort in 2009, 2013 and 2015 respectively. Rather the complainant has been enjoying the holiday services under the membership without any issues. On the contrary, the complainant never paid the EMIs in time and approached the company time and again for realignment of the payment plans. It has also been denied if any offer as alleged in para No.3 of the complaint has ever been made by the company or on behalf of the company to the complainant. In fact, the persons sending email never sent through the company domain which clearly prove that the communication was not sent on behalf of the complainant. Therefore, the OP company was not bound by any such offer. The OPs have further pleaded that, in fact, the complainant approached the OP company in August 2017 with a request for payment realignment and expressed his inability to pay 12 EMIs and promised to pay the revised payment in 24 EMIs of Rs.5016/- each. The complainant further offered and paid consolidated payment of 3 advance EMIs for the month of August to October 2017. If the complainant was having any issue, he would not have booked and enjoyed the facilities even in the year 2017. As a goodwill gesture, the complainant was offered Resort Credit Vouchers of Rs.30,000/- and 5 complementary nights in view of better company-member relationships. The complainant readily accepted and availed the holidays at different resorts at Rajasthan in November 2017. The complainant accordingly booked the holidays at various resorts i.e. at Jaisalmer from 29.11.2017 to 01.12.2017, Udaipur from 012.2017 to 03.12.2017 and Jodhpur from 03.12.2017 to 05.12.2017 and enjoyed the booking. The complainant was well aware of the fact that that Jodhpur Resorts is an associate/affiliated property and can be occupied by its guests. Moreover, the complainant was apprised of this fact and he raised no objection in this regard. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

6.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA, affidavit Ex. CB of his wife Smt. Sukhdeep Kaur and affidavit Ex. CC of Sh.Rajinder Singh along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex. C18 and closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amit Nijhawan, Corporate Manager-Legal and authorized signatory of OP1 and OP2 along with documents Ex. R1 and Ex. R6 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through records.

9.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that the OP Company has been committing fraud with the complainant and has also been continuously providing poor services. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that when the complainant visited the Jodhpur resort of the OP Company in November 2017, the said resort was not of Club Mahindra and only one room was given to the complainant whereas he required at least two rooms. The counsel for the complainant has further argued that the resort was occupied by a marriage party and there was a lot of noise and uproar due to the marriage as the persons who had come to attend the marriage were drinking and shouting which caused lot of disturbance and inconvenience to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant having spent huge amount on obtaining membership cannot be expected to be treated in this manner which clearly amounts to deficiency of service. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complaint be allowed and OPs be made to refund the membership fee and other charges along with compensation and litigation expenses as prayed in the complaint.   

10.              On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 and OP2 contended that the complaint is false and frivolous. The complainant obtained membership in the year 2009 and he has been availing holidays at various resorts without any complaint and the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law to harass the OPs and to extract money from them. The counsel for OP1 and OP2 has further contended that it was brought to the notice of the complainant that the property at Jodhpur was an associated and affiliated property which may be occupied by some other guests. Therefore, the complaint is liable to fail.

11.              We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

12.              Admittedly, the complainant became a member of the OP Company in the year 2009 and, therefore, as stated above in para No.2 of the complaint availed holiday packages approximately for 60 nights on different places across India including Peak resorts Manali, Kandaghat, Himachal Pradesh. White Meadows resort etc. Though it has been claimed  that at all these resorts, the complainant had a very bad experience and was not provided with best facilities which were promised at the time of granting the membership but surprisingly, the complainant never lodged any complaint regarding inadequacy of the services provided at the aforesaid resorts from 2009 onwards. Therefore, so far as the holiday package claimed from 2009 onwards at various places, the present complaint at such belated stage seems to be nothing but an afterthought. Apart from that, the complainant has not given any specific reasons as to in what respect the experience of those resorts was not a pleasance one.  

13.               Second part of the complainant deals with some offer given to the complainant by an employee namely Devika Sharma of the OPs. It has been claimed that a fraud was committed by the said Devika Sharma with the complainant as the offer was not made on behalf of the company and Devika Sharma instead of using the official ID of Club Mahindra used her personal email ID while corresponding with the complainant as stated in para no.3 of the complaint. In this regard, it would be suffice to state that as far as the question of fraud is concerned, in case any fraud is committed with the complainant, qua that part of the grievance, the complaint cannot be held to be maintainable. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the Consumer Commission, the proceedings are summary in nature whereas to establish the fraud, the evidence is required to be recorded in detail. Therefore, this part of the complainant whereby some allegation of fraud had been made against the so called employee of the OP Company is concerned, the same cannot be said to be maintainable.

14.              Third part of the grievance of the complainant is with regard to the inconvenience experienced by the complainant at Jodhpur Resorts where the complainant along with his family members stayed from 03.12.2017 onwards. It has been claimed that Jodhpur Resort was booked for some outsiders for marriage purpose and there was no booking of any other member except the complainant. though it was assured by OP1 that the location would be occupied only by the Club members. It has also been claimed that out of 38 rooms, 37 rooms were booked for marriage party and the complainant was given only one room on the third floor of the resort. The persons who had come to attend the marriage were drinking and shouting throughout the night loudly causing inconvenience to the complainant and his family members. In this regard, it has been pointed out by the OPs that the complainant was made aware that the Jodhpur Resort was not exclusively owned by the OP Company and rather it was associated/affiliated property which could be occupied by other guests. The complainant was further apprised during a telephonic conversation by the company official that the said resort was booked for a marriage party to which the complainant consented  and did not raise any objection. All these facts have been pleaded by the OP1 and OP2 in para No.9 and 10 of the written statement. The complainant has not filed any rejoinder to controvert these facts and on this ground, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant. Even otherwise, merely because the rooms were occupied by other persons who had come to attend the marriage party itself cannot be said to mean that inconvenience was caused to the complainant.  Apart from the mere fact that the resort was occupied by guests of marriage party, no other allegations have been made by the complainant that the proper services and facilities were not provided to the complainant and his family members during their stay at the said resort.  Therefore, even this cannot be said to be case of deficiency of service on the art of the OPs. It further needs to be pointed out that OP1 and OP2 have categorically pleaded in the written statement that the complainant defaulted in making EMIs and even this part of the claim has not been controverted by the complainant by way of filing a replication. Even otherwise, the complaint itself to be a motivated one considering the fact that having availed many holidays from 2009 onwards, the complainant has come up with this complaint only qua his stay at Jodhpur resort only. Had the complainant having bad experience at other resorts where he availed holidays from 2009 onwards, he would have filed a complaint earlier also. The complainant admittedly never filed any  complaint and raising grievances at such a belated stage, definitely indicates that the present complaint is a motivated one. Even otherwise, as stated above, the complainant has failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint.

15.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

16.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Parminder Singh Vs Club Mahindra                               CC/19/118

Present:       Sh. Amarbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. J.S. Bindra, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   Complaint against OP3 to OP6 not admitted vide order dated                      09.05.2019.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.