DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.473/2014
Sh. Sonu Verma
195-198, Lord Krishna Apartment,
House No.2, 2nd Floor,
Mehrauli Ward No.6,
Delhi-110030 ….Complainant
Versus
The Manager,
Country Club India Ltd.
114-115 & 116-A-HUDCO Place,
BLK-A, Ansal Plaza,
Delhi ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 16.12.14 Date of Order : 03.12.18
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 17.08.14 the complainant received a call from OP’s executive that he had one gift voucher and invited him to collect the prize. The complainant visited the OP’s office and met with the executive the executive explained him their services in their tourist places and gave presentation on CV packages lucrative deals. Their executive forced the complainant to take a membership in Country Club for Rs.2,10,000/-. The complainant convinced with their assurance and paid Rs.1,87,000/- in advance to them. The executive of the OP provided the membership No. CCDL11Club30LW19447. It is stated that the complainant found, that he has to pay AMC charges every year, whereas at the time of purchase he was told that he has to pay AMC charges only when he would avail the holidays. When the complainant approached their executive for booking the hotel of Italy they were not able to provide him any booking. The complainant was dissatisfied with the OP’s services. The complainant called them and asked them to cancel the membership and refund the entire amount paid till date. Neither he had received his money nor any kind of response from OP. The complainant made several complaints to the OP but every time false assurance was given, but no one was ready to resolve his problems. The complainant sent a letter dated 10.10.14 in detail of his grievances, in the hope of receiving the positive response but no reply was received. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,87,000/- to the complainant.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant .
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the petition.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant visited the OP’s office on his own desire without any inducement and/or misrepresentation. By his free will he enquired from the OP about different products and services available and the terms and conditions on queries being made, the complainant was explained in detail about the products and services and the complainant was handed over the brochure and was taken through the services so that he satisfied himself before buying a product/membership. After careful deliberations on being thoroughly satisfied with all the terms and conditions as well as after going through the fine print of the agreement and understanding the benefits of the membership, the complainant expressed his interest in purchasing the membership of the services offered by the OP and decided to purchase a membership of the OP worth of Rs.2,10,000/- and was offered this membership at discounted price of Rs.1,85,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant, without any coercion or inducement, voluntary paid the entire membership fee and accordingly he was allotted a membership No.CCDL11CLUB30LW19447. After buying the membership the complainant was entitled to services which were set out in the agreement that was framed and signed by the complainant. The complainant was eligible for availing “6 nights and 7 days” vacation every year for 30 years in white season. As per clause 5 of the Vacation Agreement the complainant was eligible for extra holidays, i.e. a 2 nights and 3 days” vacation in Dubai and 6 nights and 7 days in Bangkok. The same was duly updated on their web records. Further, as per clause 19 of the Vacation Agreement, two air tickets vouchers had already been sent to the email address of the complainant and in compliance of clause 20 of the Vacation Agreement DAE Card was also sent to the complainant. It proves that OP has been over zealous in fulfilling its commitment. It is submitted that the complainant has filed the complaint only to extort illegally from the OP by making false accusations. The main grievance of the complainant is his inability to book a holiday in Italy. It is submitted that the OP neither has any of its own property nor any associated property in Italy. The list of properties is available online and since Italy is not covered under the membership, the question of providing any booking in Italy does not arise. The complainant claimed for refund of membership fee is not maintainable as per membership agreement which reads as under:
“AND WHEREAS the second party hereby unconditionally gives his/her/their irrevocable consent to purchase the Vacation membership with CCIL. The Second Party understands that membership fees is non-refundable under any circumstances and the membership fee is not a deposit.
It is submitted that the complainant has no right to ask for the refund of the membership fee. The said membership agreement was duly signed by the complainant after going through the terms and conditions of the same. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the OP and reiterating the averments made in 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.1,85,000/-. We mark the document as Mark -A for the purposes of identification. The complainant sent a letter dated 10.10.2014 to the OP regarding deficiency in service. We mark the same as Mark-B for the purposes of identification.
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 his case that the same was got signed from him under some threat or coercion or mistake of facts or that he had not signed it out of his free consent. If it is so, the written Agreement between the parties will be binding upon them. Despite there being enforceable contract between the parties, the OP was also supposed to comply with the terms and conditions thereof in letter and spirit. Email messages exchanged between the parties have been filed on the record, a perusal of which goes a long way to prove that the complainant was not satisfied with the services to be provided to him by OP and he had started making correspondence in this regard from the very beginning. The contract did not give any opportunity to the complainant to get rid thereof under any circumstances and it was one sided agreement.
There must have been included at least one clause in the agreement whereby the purchaser must have been given a right to cancel the membership within a particular period (freelook period) though subject to some conditions and deductions but, however, no such liberty has been afforded to the customer/ consumer in this case. Agreement is thus not conscious and justified to that extent.
The complainant had not availed any services of the OP. Therefore, the OP must have considered the request of the complainant to refund the amount paid by him after making some deduction. However, as stated hereinabove, no such freedom had been given to the complainant in the one sided agreement which contained total beneficial stipulations in favour of the OP.
Even on merits also, we do not find that present is a case of grant of compensation. The material on record shows that the complainant had enquired form representatives of OP about different services available and thereafter had signed the Agreement. Brochure/Terms and Conditions were supplied by the OP to the complainant before joining the OP Club. The Purchase Agreement was signed after being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the same. The rational of charging administrative charges was also mentioned in the Agreement. In these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled for compensation by way of interest on the deposited amount.
Therefore we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice so far as providing no option to the member to cancel the membership within a reasonable time subject to some deduction is concerned. OP must have incurred some amount of money towards administrative charges. Keeping in view the above facts discussed hereinabove, we allow this complaint and direct the OP to pay sum of Rs.1,75,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant including cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of copy this order, failing which the OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
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 03.12.18.
Devendra
