Sri     Swapan Kumar Mahanty, President.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Succinctly put, complainants’ case is that they purchased membership of OP1 country vacation (A Division of Country Club India Ltd.) on 26-06-2015 against payment of Rs.40,000/- and forced to sign club membership agreement without going through the microscopies condition laid down in the said agreement.  The complainants vide letter dated 25-11-2017 requested the OP1 to refund the amount but such request was unattended.  Finding no other alternative, the complainants have filed the instant consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

            The OPs have contested the case by filing written version contending, inter alia, that the instant consumer complaint is vindictive, motivated, harassive and misconceived one as the complainants does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The OPs have denied the allegations made out in the complaint petition.  The specific case of the OPs is that the complainants are not the consumer in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986.  The inability of the complainants to travel is no ground to refund the membership fees.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

In the light of the above pleadings the following points necessarily came up for determination :-

1. Are the complainants consumer u/s.2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Are the OPs deficient in rendering services to the complainants?
3. Are the complainants’ entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1  :  

            We have perused the pleadings of the parties coupled with documents on record.  On perusal of the Agreement dated 26-06-2015 we find that the complainants purchased Country Vacations Membership on payment of Rs.40,000/- and the said agreement is in force for 30 years subject to renewable on payment of Annual Maintenance Charges. Therefore, we hold that the complainants are consumer u/s.2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and they are liable to avail hire services from the OPs upon payment of money.  Thus, this point answered in the affirmative.

Points No.2&3  :

            Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. 

            Complainants have tendered evidence through affidavit.  Complainants also filed Brief Notes of Argument.O.Ps. did not tender any evidence through affidavit.

            It remains undisputed that the complainants purchased Country Vacations Membership from the OP1 on payment of Rs.40,000/- and an agreement was executed on 26-06-2015 between the OP2 and the complainants.  As per terms of the agreement, complainants are entitled to get the following benefits :-

Vacation Benefits:

1. A stay for a period of every year for upto 6 nights and 7 days each year at CCHHL properties within India for the next (a) 5 (b) 10 (c) 30 years from the date of this Agreement.
2. The short term accommodation shall be provided in regular and superior rooms.  Accommodation in regular properties may be upgraded to premium properties subject to availability.
3. All short term accommodation stays include studio room only (without kitchen) for the selected time for Second Party, spouse and 2 children below 12 years age.  Extra bed would be at the rate of Rs.500/- in CCHHL owned properties and as applicable in associated properties.  Dependent vacationers above 18 are considered adults.  Maximum 3 adults can be accommodated in one studio room.  Extra room will need to be taken at an additional cost if there are more than 3 adults.  Room allocation depends on eligibility and subject to availability.  The prices may be revised from time to time.  A maximum of 4 nights can be used for an associated property.
4. Vacation entitlement also covers CCHHL’S affiliated/associated properties which are on short/long term lease/tie-ups.  As of 2015 first party has over 59 vacation properties (own and associated) at – Agra, Ahmedabad, Bangalore (4), Bangkok, Bandipur, Chennai, Chennai-Mahabalipuram Rd., Cochin, Coimbatore, Corbett, Dharmshala, Dubai (Limited), Fujairah (limited), Goa (3), Gurgaon-Hyderabad (45), Jaipur (2), Kasauli, Kovalam, Kodaikanal, Lonavla, Mahabaleshwar, Manali, Mathura, Munnar, Mussorie, Mysore Philippins(7), Puri, Shimla, Surat, Thekkedy, Tirupati, Udaipur, Umm Al Quwain (Limited) Kuala lumpur, Khana, Shiridi, Mandarmani.
5. As a special offer 10 years renewable vacations are eligible for additional vouchers towards accommodation for 6 nights and 7 days at CCHHL’S affiliated property in Bangkok.  30 years renewable vacations are eligible for additional voucher towards accommodation for 2 Nights and 3 Days Holidays at Country Club Hotel.  Dubai and 6 nights and 7 days at CCHHL’S affiliated property in Bangkok.  These offers are valid for a period of one year from the date of registration of the Agreement.  As this is an additional vacation, Exchange Charges and Booking charges are as applicable.
6. SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION VACATION – Floating Week Opted :

1. Blue (Standard Priority – Standard pricing) (II) White (Medium Priority – Medium pricing) 25 percent (approx) premium extra or (III) Red (High Priority – High pricing) 50 percent (approx) premium extra.

            The complainants alleged that they are aged persons and not in a position to tour anywhere in India in terms of clause-4 of vacation benefit being asthma and heart patient.  They are under treatment of doctor. The complainants did not disclose any deficiency in service against the OPs in the consumer complaint as well as in the Examination-in-Chief. Their only allegation is that in spite of letter dated 25-11-2017 the OPs did not refund the membership amount and their letter was unattended. On perusal of the agreement dated 26-06-2015, we find that there is a clause that the membership fees is non-refundable under any circumstances and that the membership fee is not refundable deposit. The complainants did not avail vacation benefits over 59 properties of the OP1 due to their health problem and the OPs are no way responsible for such inconvenience of the complainants.

            In the light of the above observation, we are of the opinion that the OPs are not deficient in providing services to the complainants and there is no unfair practice on the part of the OPs.  Accordingly, both the points under determination answered in the negative.

            In the result, the complaint fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on merit against the OPs but without any cost.

            Copy of the order be handed over to the parties when applied for.