Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/919/2016

Mandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Kanwar Pal Singh,Adv

08 Jun 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	919 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	24.10.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	08.06.2017

 

 

 

 

Mandeep s/o Sh.Chuni Lal, aged 28, r/o Address- # 147/A, First Floor, Balaji Enclave, Phase-2, Lohgarh Zirakpur, Punjab  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd., Office at SCO 44-45, above PNB Bank,   Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160015

2]  Country Kool, Country Club Global Head Quarters, 4^th & 5^th floor, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016

                               ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Kanwar Pahul Singh, Counsel for complainant

 Sh.Pradeep Sharma, Counsel for OPs

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant being allured by the various luxurious options of the membership of the OPs, accepted the membership and made payment of Rs.25,000/- to OPs through credit card on 15.7.2016.  Thereafter, the complainant was allotted Membership Card No.CVCDGIVIOLB223298.  It is stated that after taking the membership, the OPs started making offer for booking of two rooms for Manali.  Then, the complainant requested the OPs for booking of two rooms on 13.8.2016 at Manali, but even after much conversation, requests and reminders, the Ops failed to provide the booking.  Ultimately, being unsatisfied from the OPs as they failed to provide any service, the complainant sought refund of booking amount of Rs.25,000/-.  However, even after so many reminders, the OPs failed to refund the amount to the complainant.  Hence, alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant and his wife with their free consent signed the agreement with OPs i.e. “Only vacation agreement (no club/fitness)” on 15.7.2016 and at the time of signing the agreement, the complainant while making partial payment of Rs.25,000/-, agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- at later stage.  However, as the complainant did not make the balance payment within 45 days as per Clause 12 of the agreement, therefore the partial amount of Rs.25,000/- paid by him was automatically forfeited.  It is denied that any offer was made by the complainant for booking of two rooms for Manali or any other place.  It is further stated that the representative of the OPs did contact the complainant and addressed his grievance and advised him to make the balance payment within 45 days of the agreement and thereafter book the holidays online as per procedure in order to enjoy the benefits.  It is submitted that as per express clause under the agreement, the vacation charges is not refundable under any circumstances and the vacation fee is not refundable deposit. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

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

 

5]       The Purchase Agreement dated 15.7.2016 For Vacation Membership placed on record at Page No.7 by the complainant along with receipt of payment of Rs.25,000/- at Page No.11, reveals that the complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs for availing their membership. 

 

6]       It is disputed in the present complaint that despite the payment of Rs.25,000/- to the OPs, the OPs have failed to provide the due services to the complainant when he tried to book two rooms at Manali in the month of August, 2016. 

 

7]       The OPs in their defence submitted that the membership amount to be paid under the agreement was agreed to the tune of Rs.1,45,000/-, whereas the complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- only agreeing to pay the rest of the amount afterwards. It is claimed that since the complainant has failed to pay the balance of the amount within 45 days, as stipulated in the Vacation Agreement, thus not entitled for any services as well the amount deposited by the complainant is also forfeited.  The Opposite Parties also denied that the complainant ever tried any booking with them under the Vacation Agreement and referred to Clause NO.16 of the Agreement disclosing the procedure of booking as well referred Clause No.9 of the agreement, whereby the complainant was also under liability to make payment towards annual maintenance charges of Rs.8500/-, which too he failed to pay.  Denying any deficiency in service, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

 

8]       It is a proven fact that the complainant had only paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Opposite Parties, whereas he was under obligation to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, before availing any of the services of OPs under the Agreement.

 

9]       As the complainant missed to pay the balance amount, the OPs also opted not to ask for the balance amount from the complainant till the period of 45 days elapsed as mentioned in Clause NO.12 of Vacation Agreement.  This act of omission to call for the complainant to pay the balance under the agreement in question, is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

10]      We are of the considered view that it is quite convenient and beneficial for the OPs to forfeit the booking amount/initial amount paid to them in case the complainant/applicant failed in his turn to pay the balance within 45 days, without reminding him for the balance payment. Further, the OPs also not bothered to reply the emails sent by the complainant, requesting refund of his amount (as mentioned on Page NO.15 & 16), and this act of non-responsiveness of the OPs leads to the present complaint being an additional burden on the complainant to get the refund of his hard earned amount.  Act of usurping the hard money without giving any services in reciprocate is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is writ large. 

 

11]      In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against OPs.  The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment for deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice;
3. To pay litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of filing complaint till realization, apart from complying with the directions as at sub-para (i) & (iii) above.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

8^th June, 2017                                                               Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER