Delhi

North East

CC/129/2023

RISHI KANT DIXIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

COUNTRY HOLIDAYS INN & SUITES PVT. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 129/23

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rishi Kant Dixit S/o  Sh. Dev Dutt Dixit R/o B 460, MIG Flats (DDA) Chitrakoot, East of Loni Road Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Country Holidays Inn & Suites Pvt. Ltd. OBS Tower 3rd Floor, A Block, A 37 Sector 63, Noida 201301 UP, India	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:     DATE OF ORDER:

11.05.23 10.07.24 01.10.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party i.e. Country Holidays Inn & Suites Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that Complainant booked a 5 years (6N/7D per year) + 2 bonus weeks Holidays programme with Opposite Party in July 2018 on basis of terms and conditions of package and paid total cost of the package worth Rs. 80,000/- in advance to the firm as membership fee and Rs. 8,260/- as AMC amount in September 2019 vide membership no. CHISDLSA774196 valid up to 05 years i.e. up to 01 July 2023. It is stated that the company promised to provide locations across the globe with 250 travel associates and 3,500 ties up collaborative properties. It is also stated that Opposite Party also promised no loss of holidays and assured that in case any holidays is missed, the complainant can avail it later. The grievance of the Complainant is that when he tried to avail holidays at any of the mentioned locations by Opposite Party,  most of the Complainant choices listed locations were declared inactive or not available for booking. Hence, Complainant could be able to book only 4 nights till completion of more than four years. Since last two years in spite of Complainant repeated efforts, no location of Complainant’s choice was booked by the Opposite Party firm.  Every time Complainant tried to book any site, different excuses were made and holidays were not booked. The Complainant made plans so many times but CHIS is not able to provide the promised services, resulting at two occasions in past Complainant has to book his choice locations from other service provider on payment basis. Thus in spite of depositing Rs. 88,000/- with the firm Complainant had to pay extra cost of booking accommodation on the same locations, which are mentioned by Opposite Party.  Complainant stated that since last two years in spite of Complainant repeated efforts, no location of Complainant’s choice was booked by the Opposite Party firm, Complainant tried to book his holidays many time but booking was not confirmed by the company. Complainant sent an e-mail to the Opposite Party company to either extend the Complainant’s membership tenure or return the amount but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to refund of his membership fee of Rs. 88,000/- and compensation for suffering.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 27.10.23.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant in person and have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant booked Holidays programme with Opposite Party on basis of terms and conditions of package and paid total cost of the package worth Rs. 80,000/-as membership fee. The grievance of the complainant is that though under the package, Opposite Party promised to provide locations across the globe but could not provide location of his choice as most of them were being shown as inactive or not available for booking. It is alleged that due to unavailability of the desired locations, the complainant could book only 4 nights in four years. Complainant alleged that since last two years in spite of Complainant repeated efforts, no location of Complainant’s choice was booked by the Opposite Party. Each time, Opposite Party made different excuses and booking was not made. It is also the case of the Complainant that he sent an e-mail to the Opposite Party company to either extend the Complainant’s membership tenure or return the amount but nothing was done and Opposite Party failed to provide promised services.
5. In support of his case, the complainant has produced inter alia the copy of Invoices issued by Opposite Party as payment proof, copy of Membership document, copy of agreement with Opposite Party and copy of correspondence between him and the Opposite Parties.
6. It is evident from the perusal of the above documents relied upon by the complainant that Opposite Party sold subject holiday package and received amount of Rs. 80,000/- in advance as membership fee and Rs. 8,260/- as AMC amount. It is also evident from correspondence taken place between the parties that several requests were made for booking the desired location as per the terms and conditions of the package agreement but bookings were refused at the behest of one or the other excuse. It is also alleged that complainant requested to extend the Complainant’s membership tenure or return the amount which was not done by the Opposite Party.
7. The allegation of the complainant is that the Opposite Party failed to fulfil their commitment and did not provide satisfactory services. It is evident from the record that the Opposite Party neither provided the promised services to the complainant nor extended the membership nor refunded the amount.
8. It is to be noted here that Opposite party has not put in appearance in spite of notice and failed to file its version, hence, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the complainant which is testified on oath.
9. In view of the evidence led by the complainant, the facts alleged are clearly indicative of deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Party more particularly when the Opposite Party has failed to prove to the contrary. 
10. In view of above discussion and the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the complainant regarding the deficiency of services on the part of Opposite Party, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party is liable for the deficiency in services towards the Complainant by not providing the services as per package and causing mental and physical agony to the complainant. However, complainant is not entitled to complete refund as admittedly, he has availed the services offered by the Opposite Party for 4 nights and out of total 5 years period, for two years, bookings were not possible as Covid 19 was prevalent as is clear from the record and Opposite Party cannot be held responsible for that duration.
11. Thus, the complaint is allowed partly and Opposite party i.e. Country Holidays Inn & Suites Pvt. Ltd. is directed to refund to the Complainant Rs. 40,000/- @ 9 % p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till its recovery.
12. Order announced on 01.10.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President