STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Priyank Gagneja S/o Shri Sarwan Kumar, R/o House No.1533, Progressive Enclave, Sector 50-B, Chandigarh  

                                                                       ……Appellant

V e r s u s

Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited, Branch Office: Shop No. 44 and 45, Second Floor, above Punjab National Bank, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160009.

Head Office: 16-6-3-1219/A, Country Club Kool Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016.

                                                               …….Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 18.06.2018 passed by  District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint   No. 61/2017.

BEFORE:           JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                    MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER

Argued by:    Mr.Sumesh Dhanwantri,Advocate for the appellant.

                     Mr.Pradeep Sharma,Advocate for the respondent

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Appellant/Complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), partly allowing  his complaint.     

2.            As per admitted facts on record the complainant became member of OP on payment of Rs.1,40,000/- as membership fee and Rs.22,425/- towards advance annual maintenance charges for the period between 18.1.2012 to 18.1.2017.  It was agreed by the OP to provide him facility of stay etc. for a period of 30 years  starting from the date, as mentioned above.  The complainant successfully availed the package qua stay for the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, when he made attempt to book  accommodation for his stay in the year 2015-16, it was blocked by the OP. Grievance was raised with the OP, however, nothing was done.  He was wrongly intimated that on account of non-payment of maintenance charges for the year 2016, benefit has been declined. He took up the matter with the OP  by stating that initially an amount of Rs.22425/- was paid towards maintenance charges for five years and not three years, as stated by the OP. When he failed to get any relief, a consumer complaint was filed seeking refund of the entire amount paid with interest.

 3.              Upon notice, reply was filed by the OP stating that the amount paid towards membership fee is non-refundable as per terms and conditions of the agreement signed between the parties.  It was further said that the amount towards maintenance charges was received for three years and not for five years, as alleged. Further detail was given about the manner and mode of payment. Some discount was offered to the complainant in making payment of maintenance charges which was  availed by him.  

4.           The complainant filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the complaint.

5.              Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, qua deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice  on the part of the OP, rendered the following finding;

“ Per record, there is unequivocal admission on the part of the Opposite Party that there is no such due Annual Maintenance Charges (AMC) to be paid by the Complainant, for the purpose of booking of the holidays, till 2016.  It has come on record that the Opposite Party has not clarified to the Complainant, at any stage, that why his facility pertaining to the year 2015-16, for booking of the holidays, was blocked by it (OP), without rhyme and reasons. We feel that being the service provider, it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to come to a conclusion after seeking irrefutable details regarding the pending dues from the Complainant and only thereafter they could block the facility pertaining the booking of the holidays. Any deviation therefrom, to our mind, certainly and definitely amounts deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and its indulgence into unfair trade practice. Needless to mention here that due to the deficient services rendered by the Opposite Party, the Complainant had to face tremendous harassment by writing protracted e-mails to the Opposite Party, interacting with them not only through telephonically, but also by visiting their office time & again and eventually, to knock the doors of this Forum for justice.”

6.         It was rightly said that the complainant was put to unnecessary harassment.  He was never informed in advance that the facility for the year 2015-16 was not available and on account of what reasons. Qua refund of the amount paid, it was rightly said that there existed contractual obligation between the parties. For two successive years, the complainant had availed the facilities provided by OP. In the third year he failed to book the slot.  There was no complaint during the period of stay in the accommodation provided by the OP. In this case the scheme was for a period of 30 years and once started and availed successfully, without any justification, it will not be open to a member to claim refund as and when some deficiency occurs in providing service. In view of the above, reasonable compensation was awarded and it was also ordered that the previous expired holidays for the year 2015-16 be extended.  We are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum is quite justified and no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,  with no order as to costs.   The order of the District Forum is upheld. 

8 .          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.