- Dipti Kar & Dilip Kumar Kar,
7C, Dina Nath Mitra Lane,
Kolkata-6, P.S. Girish Park. ________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Country Vacations,
C/o Azhar Baig, General Manager,
86B/2, 1st Floor, Gajraj Chambers,
Park Circus Connector, Topsia Road,
Kolkata-46, P.S. Topsia. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 16 Dated 28/08/2014
The case of the complainant in short is that complainants being husband and wife filed this instant petition for availing of tour of staying in the resorts of o.p. After convincing the facilities which would be rendered by o.p., complainant no.2 deposited Rs.15,000/- on 29.12.11 to o.p. the receipt of which has been annexed by complainants as annex-II of the petition of complaint, being part payment of the membership to o.p. organization. It appears from the record that complainants also deposited Rs.15,000/- once again for another part payment towards the entire consideration money.
But thereafter complainants desired to cancel their membership and prayed for refund of Rs.30,000/- from o.p. which is evident from annex-VI annexed with the petition of complaint.
O.p. appeared in the case by filing w/v and o.p. interalia stated that complainants never deposited Rs.30,000/- as the part payment towards the membership, but they admitted that they have received Rs.15,000/- only from complainant no.2 as part payment towards entire consideration money for membership. Besides o.p. also stated that complainants made some false allegations against them in order to lower down their reputation and falsely claimed for Rs.30,000/- as has been stated above.
Decision with reasons:
Upon perusal of the entire materials on record and on scrutiny of the entire record it is evident that though the instant petition filed by complainant nos.1 and 2, but the agreement which has been executed between the complainants and o.p. on 30.12.11, it is seen that the aforesaid agreement has been executed between the complainant no.2 with o.p. But surprisingly enough that complainant nos.1 and 2 have signed the agreement in every page. As such, the aforesaid agreement cannot be called as agreement in true sense of the term since such agreement is defective one because the agreement has been executed between the complainant no.2 and o.p. only whereas the instant petition has been filed by both the complainants.
Besides from the record there is no scrap of paper wherefrom we can hold that the provision of cancellation was there or not and if so, how much amount would be deducted due to cancellation as cancellation fee.
Besides until and unless complainants availed of the facilities that would be provided by o.p. as service provider, it can be prudent to conclude that o.p. make deficiency of service to the complainants. So, before availing of any service from service provider and before deposition of entire consideration money towards the same it is not judicious to declare that o.p. has made deficiency of service to complainants. It is crystal clear that in no case as per the sweet will of the complainants they can cancel the membership before deposition of the entire consideration money and approach this Forum without availing of the facilities which would be rendered by o.p. by alleging deficiency of service to them.
In view of the discussions of the foregoing paragraph this Forum holds that the complainants failed to substantiate the claim in respect of deficiency of service by o.p. to them and as such, complainants are not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against the o.p. without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
