Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/748/2017

Babita Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Surjeet Bhadu

21 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/748/2017
Date of Institution	:	24/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	21/11/2018

 

Babita Saini, R/o H.No.4056-A, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500061 A.P., through its Director Sh. Rajeev Reddy Yedaguri; and

 

          Having its Branch Office at Chandigarh

 

          Country Vacations (A Division of Country Club India Limited), SCO 44-45 (Above Punjab National Bank), Sector 9, Chandigarh – 160015, through its Venue Manager Sh. Sirmoy Banerjee/and through its Director.

[2]     Manjula Reddy Yedaguri, Director of Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited, Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500061 A.P.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Abhinav Kansal, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.
		Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Mrs. Babita Saini, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Limited and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that allured by the green pastures projected by the Opposite Parties about the holiday product, she bought Blue Membership of the Opposite Parties for 30 years by depositing an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- on 10.09.2016 towards full & final payment of the package offered to her. The Complainant applied for booking an accommodation through e-mail dated 29.09.2016 to the Opposite Parties for Goa for the period from 30.12.2016 to 05.01.2017 for accommodating eight adults for three nights in the property of the Opposite Parties. However, the Opposite Parties did not revert back, which left the Complainant stranded. Eventually, after waiting considerably, the Complainant vide e-mail dated 29.10.2016 sought refund of her money, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that as per the agreement dated 10.09.2016 the payment of Rs.1,75,000/- was towards one time non-refundable vacation charges. The Complainant as per the Membership Scheme was not entitled for seeking booking for 8 adults in any case hence was not entitled and accordingly could not be provided accommodation during that period; whereas Complainant was free to book the vacation for any other period in the whole years. Thus, the Opposite Parties were acting as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement itself which does not amount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4.         The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, wherein the averments as contained in the Complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the reply by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have been controverted.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte).
7.         Admittedly, the Complainant sought for a holiday at Goa with the Opposite Parties at their own affiliated properties for eight adults, which according to the Opposite Parties was against the terms of the Agreement. However, per material on record, we are not impressed with the same. On careful analysis of Annexure C-1 which is the Purchase Agreement for Vacation Membership entered interse the parties, we find that the Complainant is eligible for a holiday for 6 Nights/ 7 Days annually for 2 Adults and 2 Kids under 12 years age for 1 Studio Room under Blue Season category. The clause no.3 of the said Agreement clearly shows that the maximum 3 adults can be accommodated in one studio room and extra room will need to be taken at an additional cost if there are more than 3 adults.  However, there is nothing on record to show that the Opposite Parties ever replied to any e-mail of the Complainant or even tried to communicate him regarding his willingness to pay the additional cost for the studio rooms beyond her entitlement. Meaning thereby, the e-mail written by the Complainant was never processed or entertained by the Opposite Parties, which to our mind amounts to deficiency in service of highest nature and to cover this lapse, they had taken the refuge that the accommodation at Goa had been sold out. At any rate, it is not the case of the Complainant that Opposite Parties refused the same for being applied for eight adult members against their terms & conditions or there was default in the payment or there was message conveyed by the Opposite Parties regarding the blocked out dates as mentioned in their version.
8.         Meticulous perusal of the entire record nowhere shows that any kind of action was taken by the Opposite Parties after receiving the request from the Complainant for the booking. We feel the Complainant did not do any charity to the Opposite Parties, after all she had to avail the services of the Opposite Parties that too in the form of booking in their properties, but the act of the Opposite Parties for neither responding nor honouring their own terms & conditions clearly shows their indulgence into unfair trade practice. It is important to note that the Opposite Parties after charging hefty amount of Rs.1,75,000/- have filed vague reply, which is bereft of any substance. So far as the question of non-refundable vacation charges is there, the Opposite Parties since beginning did not show any interest/ loyalty to their duty in the form of responding to the Complainant, rather to the chagrin of the Complainant, they left him in lurch after getting the huge amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. To our mind, the Complainant deposited the amount to have fun and not the trauma as created by the Opposite Parties firstly, by not providing the booking of accommodation; secondly, by refusing refund to her and lastly, by dragging him into unpleasant, unwarranted and unnecessary litigation.  
9.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To refund the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- paid by the Complainant for purchasing vacation membership;

[b]    To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

10.         The above said order shall be complied within thirty days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties. In default, the Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the directions at Sr. No. (a) & (b) above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as at Sr. No. (c) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/11/2018	[Dr.S.K. Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”