DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.116/2015
Smt. Neena Sirohi
W/o Lt. Col. Deepak Sirohi
R/o 1/195/4, Sadra Bazar,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010 ….Complainant
Versus
Country Club (India) Ltd. (CCIL)
CG-06, Ansal Plaza, Hudco Place,
Khel Gaon Marg,
New Delhi-110049
Also at:
Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad,
Secretariat, Hyderabad-500063 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 01.05.15 Date of Order : 19.03.18
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she was invited with family by the OP at their Ansal Plaza Office on 04.01.15 to collect a holiday voucher as they were lucky winners. During the discussion, she had specifically informed the OP that her husband is a Lt. Col. in the army and they are already entitled to guest rooms which are decent and comfortable and that the OP’s resorts are inferior to Mahindra Resorts and most of them are level of 3 star and they had no reason to buy membership from OP. The representative of the OP Mr. Avinash Sharma informed her that they had tie up with DAE which has 5 stars on its panel so she can opt to chose holiday through them and upgrade hotels to 5 stars everytime for next 30 years; that she will also get 4 weeks bonus every year for which she has to pay Rs.1000- Rs.1500 per day for a 5 star property; that these 4 weeks can be availed in any number of times; that booking of DAE will always have to be confirmed 35 days in advance; that “they have no such seasons like Mahendra. I We book anywhere 30 days in advance with any CCIL resorts, CCIL will get confirmed booking.” It was stated that the offer was valid for that day only. Paras 5, 6 & 7 of the complaint read as under:-
“5. I filled all papers myself, but the paper which had the clause of availability was filled by CCIL executive and while receiving payment along with other documents I signed this as well on utmost good faith. Had he asked me to fill that form, for sure I would have read it before signing.
6. CCIL was in such a hurry to receive payment that Sonia (sales executive) came to our house same day at 10 pm to collect money. A clear indication that they never wanted the client to give a second thought or logon to CCIL or DAE and find out facts.
7. Once I received the welcome kit, to my astonishment the facts were different. The DAE and CCIL offices gave the following reverts:
(a) DAE Revert: They are not under any binding to confirm 35 days in advance to CCIL members. The booking are purely subject to availability. And surprisingly when I visited DAE’s site, the properties were majorly Mahendra resorts. Avinash, while making representation did not speak anything below Taj, Oberoi, Leela’s and other premier properties.
(b) CCIL Revert: I tried booking a holiday for 14-17th march in first week of February, the CCIL also reverted that the resorts are not available. Now when I spoke with customer care (Gurneet Kaur), she agreed something bad and wrong has happened to us and will speak to higher authorities. The fresh terms and conditions which now she furnished after lot of follow-ups had enhanced features to keep us cool but the two major requirements still not met. She always insisted on availing a holiday with them but I was sure now that I have been cheated and I will not avail anything they offer else they shall start deducting the money at the time of settlement. Now when I followed-up with her senior Bharat, he also provided same terms and conditions which are different and now discarded the discussions that I had during closing sales with CCIL. The last correspondence that I had with CCIL said that the paper which was signed by Avinash is just a discussion paper and rejected my request of refund. But that discussion paper was the only consideration for me to pay Rs.1.25 lacs to CCIL.”
The officials of the OP started not talking to her and harassing her all the time and hence she decided to file a complaint. Paras 10 & 11 of the complaint are relevant. The same read as under:-
10. There are other issues as well which were either told differently or concealed during discussion, like
a. Breaking holiday: we were given an understanding that it is allowed but the fact that a day from the holiday will be reduced was concealed.
b. AMC: the understanding given was that the AMC is applicable from next year but it is applicable from day 1.
11. Summary:
Commitments Made Post Sales Statement
1. Booking 30 days prior will always 1. Bookings are subject to
be confirmed by Country Club. availability.
2. Bookings made 35 days prior 2. DAE is an external Agency and through DAE will also be Country Club has no control on it.
confirmed as DAE has an
agreement with them.
3. Holidays can be broken in two 3. Holidays can be broken in two
installments installments but the days will
reduce.”
Hence, pleading harassment, insult and mis-selling the Scheme on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to refund Rs.1.25 lacs to the complainant,
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.3.5 lacs to the complainant towards compensation for causing lot of harassment, insult, mental trauma and reduction in efficiency at work.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant had visited their office on her own desire without any inducement and enquired about the details of the terms and conditions and the OP explained the details about the product and service. After satisfaction she had purchased a membership from the OP which was worth Rs.1,50,000/- but it was offered to the complainant at a cash out/discounted price of Rs.1,25,000/-. The complainant without any coercion or inducement voluntarily paid the entire membership fee and she was allotted a membership No.CCDL11V30LB20734 and the complainant was eligible for availing 6 nights and 7 days vacation every year for 30 years in “blue season.” She was also entitled to certain special services and in compliance of clauses 18 & 19 of the Vacation Agreement, domestic Air Ticket vouchers for one trip and DAE card were duly sent to the complainant. It shows the good conduct of the OP. It is stated that the membership amount deposited by the complainant is non-refundable since it is not a deposit. The Complainant entered into a binding Agreement which cannot be terminated unilaterally. The same has been provided on the face of the Application form submitted by her for getting enrolled in the said Membership and has been incorporated under the Membership Agreement too. The entire exercise adopted by the Complainant has been to ensure that she can overreach the Agreement by making false and frivolous allegations. The Clause in the Vacation Agreement is reproduced hereunder:-
“AND WHEREAS the second party hereby unconditionally gives his/her/their irrevocable consent to the signing of this Agreement of Vacation with CCIL. The Second Party understands that VACATION CHARGES IS NON-REFUNDABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES and THAT THE VACATION FEE IS NOT REFUNDABLE A DEPOSIT.”
So far as booking is concerned it is stated that it is clearly mentioned in the clause 13 of the agreement that booking of any of the CCIL properties or its ties up is subject to availability and on first come first serve basis and the booking process is transparent as the availability status can be checked online and the holiday can be booked there and then. The contention of the complainant that the resorts of the OP are inferior to Mahindra resorts is misleading and incorrect. Had it been so the complainant would have not purchased the membership from the OP. The complainant had signed the membership agreement which defines the right and liabilities of both the parties. She cannot expect the benefits over and above the benefits mentioned in the agreement. The complainant was informed about the cash out prize/ discount of Rs.25,000/- available on the particular day when she purchased the membership. She herself requested the representative of the OP to visit her residence to collect the consideration amount as she wanted to avail the said discount by completing the transaction on that particular day itself. Hence, the claim of the complainant is false and be rejected. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Bharat Reddy, Legal Officer has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly the complainant had purchased a membership from the OP for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. We mark the document as Mark -A for the purposes of identification. The complainant has filed the hand written 3 papers stated to be prepared and given to her by the representative of the OP. We mark the same as Mark B for the purposes of identification. The same are admitted to be in the handwriting of Avinash of OP. The complainant has sent various emails to the OP regarding membership.
The main contention on behalf of the complainant is that what had been told to her orally by OP’s representative Mr. Avinash on 04.01.15 was not incorporated in the Vacation Agreement and hence the OP is guilty of deficiency in service. We have very carefully gone through the document Mark B. At one place the following words are written:-
“intimate 30 days in advance even in 35 days through DAE.”
The figure “100%” is also written with these words alongwith an arrow.
This according to the complainant was the assurance given by the representative of the OP at the time of booking that in case the complainant makes any booking in OP’s resort she would have to give intimation 30 days in advance and in case through DAE she will have to give 35 days’ intimation in advance. This is not made part of the Vacation Agreement. Now, the case of the complainant is that though she had signed the documents but, however, the clause containing availability was filled up by CCIL executive. The copy of the Vacations Agreement is placed on the record. We have gone through it. We were also seen the original Agreement as well. Now, clauses 13, 36 & 37 of the said Agreement are relevant. The same are reproduced as hereunder:-
13. CCIL has the right to withdraw any properties from the list at any time without prior intimation. Holiday booking process is online and on first come first serve basis and is open for booking as specified in Claus below. Online booking will be confirmed subject to availability of the rooms. A nominal exchange fee may be applicable.
36. Second Party understands that this Agreement (in the printed form ONLY) SUPERCEDES any communication whether written or oral or any variation or hand written remarks rewriting the printed Agreement made by the Agents and/or representatives of CCIL or Second Party to this Agreement and/or any other written communication issued by CCIL representatives (including on Company Letter Head or STAMP PAPER). Further, Second Party understands that the benefits and terms of the vacations as set out in this Agreement are final and binding on CCIL, and Second Party.
37. Second Party confirms that no other verbal /written promises or any other assurances in deviation from this agreement have been made by CCIL’s personnel.
The Agreement does not contain any clause with respect to the availability of the accommodation/resort which could have been filled in hand either by the complainant or by the OP’s representative. Therefore, the submission made by the complainant that the said clause containing the availability of the resort was filled up by the OP’s executive is against the record.
It may be correct that some negotiation had taken place between the complainant and the OP’s representative before executing the Vacation Agreement but, however, the Agreement had been signed by the complainant and it is not her case that the same was got signed from her under some threat or coercion or mistake of facts or that she had not signed it out of her free consent. If it is so, the written Agreement between the parties would override the oral negotiation /stipulation, if any, stated to be made on behalf of the OP by the OP’s representative.
According to the complainant, she had booked a holiday in first week of February for 14.03.2017 but she was informed by the OP that the resorts were not available. It is clearly stipulated in the Agreement that the booking was to be confirmed subject to availability of the resort. This was the only one incident. The complainant did not try to book any resort of OP thereof thereafter. Therefore, the complainant, who is the wife of an officer of Lt. Colonel rank in the Army cannot now say that she had signed the documents in utmost good faith without seeing the availability clause. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Complainant has to abide by the terms stipulated in the Vacation Agreement. Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We accordingly dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.03.18.
