Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.
- Sh.Maninder Pal Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that Opposite Party No.1 is a division of Country Club (India) Limited running its business to gain through Opposite Party No.2 at Amritsar and Opposite Party No.2 through their Manager Baljinder Singh approached the complainant and allured him with their schemes and he had shown green pastures to allure the complainant to purchase their policy/ scheme. The complainant came in his trap and became member of CCII for which the Opposite Party No.2 and complainant entered into an agreement in this respect on 21.4.2016 on payment of Rs.1 lac. Opposite Parties also issued Membership card CVAMSIVIOLB219259 valid for ten years. The Opposite Party is engaged in hospitality business operating clubs, hotels and resorts and marketing of club and vacations Membership purchase agreement. A separate vacations agreement No. 11727 was also entered between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 being their authorized officer at Amritsar Branch. At the time of enrolling the complainant on receipt of Rs.1 lac, the Opposite Party assured him that the complainant will get 6 nights 7 days stay in their hotel for 11 years, vacation benefits are also given in the vacation agreement. In the month of June, 2016 the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 at their office for getting Hotel Piccadily Resort at Manali, but Opposite Party No.2 with one pretext or the other delayed the same and finally refused to give/ allot benefit of their hotel at Manali. When the complainant insisted for allotment of facility as per their agreement and oral commitment, the Opposite Party No.2 behaved badly, harshly and passed so many derogatory remarks to the complainant which hurt the ego and self respect of the complainant and it caused mental tension, harassment and agony. The Opposite Parties had adopted Unfair Trade Practice at the time of sale of their scheme to the complainant by showing green pastures to the complainant to allure him to purchase their policy. The complainant has prayed for following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
- Opposite parties be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 1 lac alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
- Compensation of Rs. 50000/- may also be awarded ;
- Opposite parties be also directed to pay litigation expenses to the complainants.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the Opposite Parties hereby deny the averments, allegations and contentions’ made by the complainant as alleged in the complaint, except those which are specifically admitted herein. The complainant entered into only vacations agreement dated 21.4.2016 and the consideration i.e. vacation charges were agreed to be non refundable and not a deposit which were fixed at the negotiated price of Rs.1 lac. Under the said agreement, the complainant, his/ her spouse and children are entitled to vacations stay for a period of 6 nights 7 days each year at Opposite Parties properties within India for next 10 years from the date of agreement. The complainant has not paid the annual maintenance charges of Rs.8500/- which are required to be paid from the date of agreement apart from one time vacation charges of Rs.1 lac. The complainant never booked any holidays which he was required to do online as the booking is to be done online or through the Country Club Mobile app or online booking the website is www.countryvacataionsindia.com. After the complainant was left to decide which plane he wanted to suit his requirement and price was negotiated. After final discussions and negotiations the only vacations agreement dated 21.4.2016 was entered into and the complainant paid Rs.1 lac. Remaining facts narrated in the complaint are specifically denied and a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Bharat Reddy, Legal Officer Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the complainant ad ld.counsel for Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file as well as written synopsis of arguments submitted by both the parties.
6. The complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint and vehemently contended that Opposite Party No.2 through their Manager Baljinder Singh approached the complainant and allured him with their schemes and he had shown green pastures to allure the complainant to purchase their policy/ scheme. The complainant came in his trap and became member of CCII for which the Opposite Party No.2 and complainant entered into an agreement in this respect on 21.4.2016 on payment of Rs.1 lac. Opposite Parties also issued Membership card CVAMSIVIOLB219259 valid for ten years. The Opposite Party is engaged in hospitality business operating clubs, hotels and resorts and marketing of club and vacations Membership purchase agreement. A separate vacations agreement No. 11727 was also entered between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 being their authorized officer at Amritsar Branch. At the time of enrolling the complainant on receipt of Rs.1 lac, the Opposite Party assured him that the complainant will get 6 nights 7 days stay in their hotel for 11 years, vacation benefits are also given in the vacation agreement. In the month of June, 2016 the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 at their office for getting Hotel Piccadilly Resort at Manali, but Opposite Party No.2 with one pretext or the other delayed the same and finally refused to give/ allot benefit of their hotel at Manali. When the complainant insisted for allotment of facility as per their agreement and oral commitment, the Opposite Party No.2 behaved badly, harshly and passed so many derogatory remarks to the complainant which hurt the ego and self respect of the complainant and it caused mental tension, harassment and agony. The Opposite Parties had adopted Unfair Trade Practice at the time of sale of their scheme to the complainant by showing green pastures to the complainant to allure him to purchase their policy.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the complainant entered into only vacations agreement dated 21.4.2016 and the consideration i.e. vacation charges were agreed to be non refundable and not a deposit which were fixed at the negotiated price of Rs.1 lac. Under the said agreement, the complainant, his/ her spouse and children are entitled to vacations stay for a period of 6 nights 7 days each year at Opposite Parties properties within India for next 10 years from the date of agreement. The complainant has not paid the annual maintenance charges of Rs.8500/- which are required to be paid from the date of agreement apart from one time vacation charges of Rs.1 lac. The complainant never booked any holidays which he was required to do online as the booking is to be done online or through the Country Club Mobile app or online booking the website is www.countryvacataionsindia.com. After the complainant was left to decide which plane he wanted to suit his requirement and price was negotiated. After final discussions and negotiations the only vacations agreement dated 21.4.2016 was entered into and the complainant paid Rs.1 lac. The emails communication made by the complainants was duly replied by the Opposite Parties. It was further contended that the agreement has been duly signed by the complainant at their own freewill. As such the complainant cannot wriggle out from the terms and conditions of the contract/agreement in dispute. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon “Grasim Industries Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Steel 2010(1) SCC 83 wherein it has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in our opinion when a person signed a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signatures on a document can ever be accepted.. There is no communication or evidence that the complainant ever raised any grievance in this regard.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently contended that complainant has failed to make out a case for grant of reliefs claim vide instant complaint. Therefore, complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed with cost.
9. But, however, from the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the opposite parties are deficient in service. The contract agreement vide which the complainant obtained membership of the Country Club India Ltd, has been admitted by the opposite parties. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 21.4.2016 for becoming the member of the club. It is also an admitted fact that complainant was entitled to holidays in India as well as Abroad for 6 nights 7 days in a year. After becoming a member of the opposite parties in the month of June, 2016, the complainant tried for reservation for accommodation at Piccadilly Hotel at Manali but the opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to give any response for accommodation at Manali and not given any response to the request of the complainant. This shows that opposite parties are deficient in service. 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. 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” .
10. 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. In our considered view the complainants are entitled to refund of the total fee amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order until full and final recovery. Cost of the litigation are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order ; failing which, complainants shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 27.02.2017.
