Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/75/2019

Anita Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Adv. Kuldeep Sheoran & Adv. Sanpreet Sandhu

03 Oct 2019

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	75 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	13.02.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	03.10.2019

 

 

 

 

 

Anita Verma w/o Karamjeet Singh, R/o House NO.779-B2, New Vishevkarma Colony, Pinjore, District Panchkula, Haryana.   

 

             …………..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, SCO 44-45, 2^nd Floor, Above Punjab National Bank, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, #6-3-1219/A, Second Floor, Country Club Kool, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

  …………… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA       MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Amarbir Dhaliwal, Adv. for the complainant

Ms.Geeta Gulati, Adv. for OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                 The facts in brief are that the complainant being allured by the lucrative offers & false assurances, made by the representative of the OPs, opted for the Membership of OP Club for 10 years and paid Rs.1,65,200/- on 19.12.2017 (Ann.C-1 & C-2). Thereafter, the complainant was issued membership letter dated 12.1.2018   (Ann.C-3).  However, in the said Membership letter, there is mention of payment of yearly maintenance charges, which was not disclosed at the time of taking the membership.  It is averred that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to make booking of Banquet Halls and providing GYM Services etc., as promised at the time of providing membership, but the Opposite Parties failed to provide the same.  It is stated that the son of complainant on 30.8.2018 made request to the OPs for providing accommodation as per membership in Amritsar, Punjab, but they told that they do not have tie-up in Amritsar, whereas at the time of providing Membership, they committed to have tie-up over there (Ann.C-5).  It is also stated that the complainant made request to Opposite Parties on 14.9.2018 for accommodation in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, but the request was rejected by Opposite Party stating that they have the accommodation available from 21.9.2018 (Ann.C-6). Thereafter, the complainant made request to OPs for refund of her money as they failed to provide the facility as per the agreement and for not keeping the promise made at the time of providing membership.  The complainant also sent legal notice to Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and admitted the membership of complainant and receipt of amount thereof, as alleged.  It is stated that as per the Vacation Purchase Agreement, the fee paid is non-refundable. It is submitted that the complainant was bound to pay annual maintenance charges of Rs.10,500/- excluding taxes, which were applicable irrespective of usage, from the date of the agreement itself and were required to be paid before the 1^st holiday or 9 months whichever was earlier.  It is stated that in the Welcome Letter attached as Ann.C-3 with the complaint, it is mentioned that for the complete list of affiliated properties of Opposite Party, complainant should visit website www.countryvacationsinthe.com. It is submitted that as per Clause No.26 under the heading Terms & Conditions, it is clearly mentioned that all holidays are subject to availability as Opposite Party follow a floating week in which 24^th December to 3^rd January are blocked out dates and further in ‘blue week”, the plan opted by complainant, booking can be done between 60/45 days before the date of desired holiday dates.  It is also submitted that the Membership Fee/Vacation charges is non-refundable under any circumstances.   

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       Admittedly, the complainant availed the Membership of OPs Club for 10 years and paid Rs.1,65,200/- on 19.12.2017 and accordingly, issued membership letter dated 12.1.2018.  It is undisputed that the complainant made request for booking of Banquet Halls and for providing GYM Services, which the Opposite Parties refused, having not agreed to provide the same.  As per record, the son of complainant on 30.8.2018 made request to the OPs for providing accommodation in Amritsar, Punjab, but the Opposite Parties told that they do not have tie-up in Amritsar.  For the second time, again the complainant made request to Opposite Parties on 14.9.2018 for providing accommodation in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and that too was rejected by the Opposite Parties stating that the Opposite Parties have the accommodation available from 21.9.2018 only.

 

6]       In the light of above facts now we divert ourselves to the disputed questions involved in the present complaint. The complainant in nutshell alleged that the membership of the Opposite Parties, availed by her, is worthless as the OPs failed to provide any of the facility/service whenever were approached.  Thus claimed that she is no more interested to continue with the membership and seeks refund of the amount paid to OPs as membership fee & ancillary charges.

 

7]       It has vehemently been argued by counsel for the complainant that the complainant failed to fetch any of the benefit of the membership as she could not succeed in getting the accommodation when approached OPs twice for the same.  It is also alleged that the complainant was not even given the benefit of Free Holiday Voucher for 2 Nights & Gym as well as Banquet Hall facility as promised by the OPs.

 

8]       In contradiction to the allegations of the complainant, the OPs quoted various terms enumerated in the ‘Club Membership Sale Agreement’ (Ann.C-2), the gist of the same projects that the members could avail the facility only in a particular manner as prescribed in their schedule and could succeed to get the accommodation in their resorts if they have been approached 40 to 65 days in advance.  They claimed that they do offer the complainant for the alternative dates when she approached for the booking at Shimla, which she did not accept.  As regards to the free Holiday Voucher for 2 Nights, the benefit attached with the Membership facility, they submitted that the offer was valid for the first year only and the complainant never approached them to get the benefit of the same and that facility was also unextendable. Further they also submitted that it is very well incorporated in the ‘Club Membership Sale Agreement’ that the fees once paid qua the membership is non-refundable in any circumstances. 

 

9]       After going through the submissions made by the parties and also giving due consideration to the terms incorporated in the ‘Club Membership Sale Agreement’, it reflects that the working pattern of the OPs is not very transparent and the conditions incorporated in the said agreement are one sided and prejudicial to the interest of the members/subscribers of the said membership agreement.

         In that agreement, no chance has been given to the Membership holder to quit if the services are not found to be upto the claimed standards.  The term incorporated that Membership Fee not refundable under any circumstances, is highly unjust & arbitrary condition, as one cannot predict their functioning without having availed any of their services.  Thus, the clause which forfeits the amount spent on the Membership, when complainant/member opts not to continue with the same, is highly unjustified & untenable.

10]      In the written statement, the OPs submitted that the complainant should have approached 8 days earlier while he tried to book for Shimla 2/3 days in advance and at the same time they are relying upon terms of ‘Club Membership Sale Agreement’ that the member is to apply for any accommodation 40 to 65 days in advance. The Opposite Parties have not filed any evidence to the effect that on particular dates when complainant approached them for accommodation in Shimla, they were unable to provide the said facility to her. The system of the OPs qua the booking is not transparent. Further, it is observed that the plan for a holiday in much advance i.e. 40 to 65 days prior is non-feasible and one cannot predict the actual situation/circumstances on that relevant period of booking, thus the condition of applying 40-45 days in advance is practically not feasible enough and thereafter they are left at the mercy of the Opposite Parties to either provide the accommodation or not.   

 

11]      In our considered opinion, due to the lacking of transparent system of functioning, the complainant/Member would not be able to ever avail the membership facility for which he/she has availed the membership of the Opposite Party and will always remain at the mercy of the Opposite Parties to accede his/her demand or not when approached.  In such a dubious circumstances, the complainant in the present complaint wisely decided to quit from the membership of the Opposite Parties and therefore, requested for cancellation of her membership and refund of amount paid to OPs, vide legal notice. 

 

12]      To the claim of the complainant that she was not given the benefit of free holiday voucher for 2 Nights, the Opposite Parties contended  that they kept on messaging the complainant to avail the various membership benefits, which she never availed.  For such assertions, the Opposite Parties have not placed on record any material corroborating the same.  They have not even offered the complainant the benefit of free Holiday Voucher for 2 Nights well in time, which was complementary with the Membership of OPs and shifted the burden upon the complainant stating that she herself has not availed such benefit well in time.  Such deceitful functioning of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to their indulgence into unfair trade practice. 

 

13]      In our opinion when once the Opposite Parties are not in a position to fulfill their commitment with their members and stood with unreasonable conditions to thrash the rightful claim, in that eventuality, the complainant/member is fully entitle to get rid of the unreasonable contract.  It has been observed by the Forum 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, 1986’ (as amended upto date), it being a benevolent piece of legislation.

 

14]      In view of the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice, is proved on the part of OPs, due to which the complainant has suffered a lot.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 with direction to refund an amount of Rs.1,65,200/- to the complainant with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief. 

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

3^rd October, 2019                                                                       Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER