Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainants have filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that on the allurement of Opposite Party No.2, the complainants attended the meeting Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties induced the persons present there including the complainants to become a member of Opposite Party No.1, representing that Opposite Party No.1 has its properties throughout India including Nanital, Masoorie, Goa and Hyderabad and abroad as well and Opposite Party No.1 has also arrangement with other clubs in whole of India. Opposite Party No.2 also allured the complainants that members can avail six nights seven days stay per year for thirty years and offered the membership of Opposite Party No.1 with an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and allured the complainants that in case, the complainant get the membership of Opposite Party No.1 today itself then the complainants will get one mobile phone make Apple i6 alongwith this Opposite Parties also provide a tour for Bali (Indonesia) for three nights, four days free and this tour includes fright chares also. Opposite Party No.2 further allured the complainants that instead of making the whole payment right now then they can make the payment of Rs.2,25,000/- installments, but the complainants have to pay Rs.1,12,500/- today itself and the rest of Rs.1,12,500/- they can give the same in five years, but they have to take decision right now in the said meeting because the said offer is valid for today meetings only. On believing the contentions of the Opposite Parties, the complainants gave a cheque of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.12,500/- in cash to Opposite Party No.2 there, but to the utter surprise of the complainants, they neither received any free gift voucher for Bali (Indonesia) nor received any mobile phone make Apple as per the assurance given by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainants wanted to go to Missouri or Nanital for three nights and four days and they contacted Opposite Party No.2 for getting the proper accommodation either in Missouri or Nanital, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not give any response to the calls of the complainants. Thereafter, the complainants made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to arrange the tour programme as decided, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainants as promised and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,12,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt of said amount and also to pay Rs.2 lakhs on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission complainant may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. In fact, the complainants came to the office of Opposite Parties at Zirakpur wherein brief presentation was given to them regarding different membership plans offered by the Opposite Parties with the procedure of booking, prices and all the terms and conditions. The complainants opted for present ‘Blue Season” membership as it sited their requirement and pocket and accordingly entered into an agreement dated 20.05.2017 with the Opposite Parties. After discussion and negotiations over the membership fee was fixed at Rs.2,25,000/- but the complainants only paid a partial amount of Rs.1,12,500/- only towards one time non refundable vacation charges under the vacation agreement and promised to pay balance later which he never did nor he cleared the annual maintenance charges as per clause No.10 under the agreement. As per clause No.10 failure to clear dues as well as annual maintenance charges shall be a default and members can not use the facilities till dues are cleared. On merits, Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed their evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence the affidavits Ex.RA and Ex.RB alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 and R6 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the ld.counsel for the complainants is that as per the assurance and allurement of Opposite Party No.2, the complainants became the member of the Opposite Parties and paid Rs.1,12,500/- and thereafter, the complainants wanted to go to Missouri or Nanital for three nights and four days and they contacted Opposite Party No.2 for getting the proper accommodation either in Missouri or Nanital, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not give any response to the calls of the complainants. Thereafter, the complainants made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to arrange the tour programme as decided, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainants as promised and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. But on the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainants and contended that in fact, the complainants came to the office of Opposite Parties at Zirakpur wherein brief presentation was given to them regarding different membership plans offered by the Opposite Parties with the procedure of booking, prices and all the terms and conditions. The complainants opted for present ‘Blue Season” membership as it sited their requirement and pocket and accordingly entered into an agreement dated 20.05.2017 with the Opposite Parties. After discussion and negotiations over the membership fee was fixed at Rs.2,25,000/- but the complainants only paid a partial amount of Rs.1,12,500/- only towards one time non refundable vacation charges under the vacation agreement and promised to pay balance later which he never did nor he cleared the annual maintenance charges as per clause No.10 under the agreement. As per clause No.10 failure to clear dues as well as annual maintenance charges shall be a default and members can not use the facilities till dues are cleared and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. The contract agreement vide which the complainants obtained membership of the Country Club, is not disputed. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,12,5000/- as per the commitment i.e. Rs.1 lakhs paid vide cheque and Rs.12,500/- paid in cash. The said membership facility was for complainants and thereafter, the complainants wanted to go to Missouri or Nanital for three nights and four days and they contacted Opposite Party No.2 for getting the proper accommodation either in Missouri or Nanital, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not give any response to the calls of the complainants and the Opposite Parties have failed to provide the requisite facilities to the complainant despite taking the membership fee of Rs.1,12,500/-. Facts of the case in hand attract to the ratio of law laid down in Harsharan Singh Versus Country Club India Limited & others decided on 1.4.2015 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it has been held that complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 80000/- which he paid to the opposite parties alongwith interest @ 9% per annum which would cater for compensation on account of harassment and mental agony, suffered by him because of deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties.”. It was also held by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled “Country Club Versus Nirmal Kumar Pandey” vide order dated 22.4.2014 that consumer can seek compensation when club and resort membership turned out to be illusory. At the time of execution of the agreement between opposite parties and the complainants, two copies of the agreement were prepared. Opposite party No.1 provided the photocopy of the agreement to the complainants and it was told to the complainants that the original agreement will be dispatched at their address. It is settled principle of law that in case, two plausible views were available, under given set of facts, the court shall be obliged to the view which was favourable to the consumer. Reference in this regard can be had to “Kulwinder Singh Versus LIC of India “ 2007(1) CLT 303 (Punjab) wherein it has been held that “where two views are possible, the one, which favour the consumer should be taken” .
9. On account of unfair trade practice being carried out by the opposite parties for not providing the facilities as agreed by opposite parties to the complainants, the complainants have suffered a great mental pain, agony, harassment at the hands of the opposite parties. Act & conduct of the opposite parties amounts to gross negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainants are required to be compensated in accordance with law.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we allow the complaint of the complainants and direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.One lakh twelve thousands five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.11.2017 till its actual realization. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
