Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/603/2019

Sukhwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arif Qureshi

19 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/603/2019
Date of Institution	:	14/06/2019
Date of Decision	:	19/01/2021

 

1.      Sukhwinder Kaur w/o Gurdip Singh

2.      Gurdip Singh S/o Bhag Singh through his SPA Holder Mrs.Sukhwinder Kaur

          Both residents of House No. 1549, Sector 64, Phase-10, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…..Complainants

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, Branch Office, SCF 44-45, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2.      Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, Regd. Office at Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500063, through its Managing Director.

3.      The Branch Manager, AXIS Bank, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY:	:	Sh. Arif Qureshi, Counsel for Complainants.
	:	None for OPs No.1 & 2.
	:	Sh. Shivoy Dhir, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, induced by the various offers offered by the representative of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 about their holiday/vacation package(s) at various properties owned by them in India as well as Abroad, the Complainants become Members on 21.07.2018 and deposited Rs.61,000/- through credit card. After returning home, when the Complainants scanned the terms & conditions of the agreement, they realized that the agreement was totally different from the assurances given by the representatives of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Further, on surfing internet, they also found that hundreds of Complaints were pending against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. In these precincts, the Complainants requested the Opposite Parties to refund their money on 22.07.2018. When the Opposite Parties dilly-dallied the matter, the Complainants requested their Banker (Opposite Party No.3) to revert back the amount of Rs.61,000/- in their account as the same was transferred in the account of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on misrepresentation of facts and unfair trade practice, which request was acceded by the Banker (Opposite Party No.3) temporarily and an amount of Rs.61,000/- was credited in the account of the Complainants. However, to the amazement of the Complainants, on 26.04.2019 the said amount of Rs.61,000/- was wrongly re-transferred in the account of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. When approached regarding the re-transfer, Opposite Party No.3 failed to provide any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, the Complainants requested the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 a number of times to refund the amount of Rs.61,000/-, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, pleaded that Complainants were given brief presentation by the Sales Executive by which features, benefits, terms & conditions under various membership plans were explained to them, out of which they opted for the Membership which suited their requirements and pocket. On receipt of refund request dated 22.07.2018, the Complainants were asked to provide PAN Card and Bank Account details and to sign Settlement/Dispute Voucher in order to receive refund of Rs.57,200/- (i.e. less Rs.3800/- towards admission charges per Clause No.34 of the Agreement), but the Complainants did not provide the same and agitated the deduction of the amount of Rs.3800/-. While denying the factum of any instructions given by the Complainants to their Banker to revert back the amount of Rs.61,000/-, it has been pleaded that if any such amount was credited by the Bank without approval of Complainant, then it was the sole liability of the Bank and answering Opposite Parties have nothing to do with it. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.3 filed reply, inter alia, pleading that Complainants showed their interest in buying the package offered by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and paid Rs.61,000/- through the Credit Card issued by answering Opposite Party. On 23.07.2018, Complainants were informed that only when the Seller (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) cancels the transaction, money can be refunded to them. However, on being shown the various letters and e-mails (attached with the Complaint), the Branch Manager informed the Complainants that he can only temporarily refund the amount for time being and not permanently as a request has been made to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for cancellation of transaction and if the same has not been accepted by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, then the amount will be debited from their account again, to which the Complainants agreed. Resultantly, temporary credit of Rs.61,000/- was given to the Complainants. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not cancel the transaction, due to which the amount was again debited from the account of the Complainants. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for Complainants and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.3.
7.         The complainants were fascinated by false exaggerated promises of Opposite Parties regarding providing vacation facilities on gaining their Membership.  There is no dispute about the fact that the Complainants were not interested to continue with the Membership which they took on 21.07.2018 after getting impressed by the oral briefing by the representatives of the Opposite Parties about their holiday/vacation packages. Payment of Rs.61,000/- made by the Complainants for becoming the Member of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have not been disputed.
8.         It is the case of the Complainants that after going through the agreement, they realized that the terms & conditions of the agreement as disclosed to them, were entirely different from what they could get from the agreement provided to them. Copy of the agreement accounts for Annexure C-1 to the Complaint. It is also a fact that the Complainants made up their mind on the next very day i.e. 22.07.2018 to get the refund of the amount of Rs.61,000/- from the Opposite Parties. In this backdrop, the sole question is that when the Complainants themselves have given written request to the Opposite Parties for refund of the entire amount paid by them, on the next very day (Annexure C-4 & C-5), then why the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have not resolved the issue promptly, especially when the Complainants invested their hard earned money to purchase their holiday package, trusting their brand name.
9.         It has come on record, that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have taken a dual stand, in as much as, on one hand, they pleaded that Complainants themselves agreed with the terms & conditions and signed the agreement after understanding the entire package terms & conditions, on the other hand, they defended the cause on the ground that they were ready to refund the amount to the Complainants, subject to providing PAN Card, Bank Account details and to signing of the Settlement/Dispute Voucher. However, to our surprise, there is nothing on record in the shape of any letter, much less e-mail/ SMS/message to show that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ever tried to resolve the issue as per Clause No. 34 of the agreement. Needless to mention here that, it has been observed by this Commission in a number of cases that these membership agreements are only a standard format of contract where the weaker party remains on the receiving end and therefore, it is our duty to protect the gullible consumers from the hands of unscrupulous traders, which also is the prime aim & object of ‘The Consumer Protection Act, it being a benevolent piece of legislation.

 

10.         However, despite receiving request dated 22.07.2018, as is evident from the Annexure C-4 & C-5, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 did not take any pain to refund the said amount to them and rather forced them to invoke the door of this Commission.  Had the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 redressed the grievance of the complainant promptly on receipt of the request then the position certain would be different but they did not do so for the reasons best known to them.  The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 cannot, by any of the provisions, allowed to siphon off the amount of the complainants and as such are liable to pay back the same i.e. Rs.61,000/-.  Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for not redressing the genuine request of the Complainants timely, to our mind, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in rendering proper service to them.
11.         The Opposite Parties enjoyed the fruits of the said amount for fairly a long period and as such the complainants are liable to be compensated on account of the physical harassment and mental agony. The aforesaid acts on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 not only amount to deficiency in service but also indulgence into unfair trade practice. In this backdrop, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainants are awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.
12.         It has come on record that on the request of the Complainants, Opposite Parties No.3, initially, gave temporary credit of Rs.61,000/- to them, but later on, unilaterally, debited the said amount from their account. To our mind, this action of Opposite Party No.3 is against the banking ethics and the benevolent spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. At any rate, Complainants are the ‘consumers’ of the Opposite Party No.3. By virtue of this, a duty is cast upon Opposite Party No.3 to protect the rights of the Complainants and to take care of their hard earned money, which it failed to do. Hence, the act of the Opposite Party No.3 for not using transparency while debiting or crediting the amount from the account of the Complainants proves deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.
13.         The sequence of the events of the present case, clearly establishes the high headedness of the Opposite Party No.3 of which the complainants became the victim and felt the burnt, as a result the complainants have been left with no alternative, except to knock the doors of this Forum, which further aggravated their pain & harassment. Thus, on this account, we deem it proper to penalize the Opposite Party No.3 for indulging in such activity, thereby causing not only loss but also mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.3 is penalized with cost of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.
14.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

(i)     Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall refund the entire amount of Rs.61,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its payment i.e. 21.07.2018, till its realization to the complainants.

(ii)    Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants.

(iii)   Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

(iv)   Opposite Party No.3 shall deposit Rs.15,000/- in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission U.T. Chandigarh.

15.      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [i] above from the date of deposit i.e. 21.07.2018, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [ii] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.  The amount mentioned at Sr.No.[iv] above be deposited by Opposite Party No.3 in the account aforesaid, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the same will carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till its deposit. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary (SCDRC), U.T. Chandigarh, for necessary action.
16.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th Jan., 2021

                        Sd/-  

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”