Order No. 12 dt. 05/10/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant’s husband is a retired govt. employee and she along with her husband became club members of Country Club for 20 years along with 5 years Travel Plan free at a cost of Rs.55,000/- only and the agreement was made on 29.1.12. After becoming the member the country club never provided any facility to the complainant, though they promised a number programmes will be held by the company throughout the year. On 31.3.12 o.p. informed the complainant that they were going to organize a programme on 31.3.12 but just half an hour before the complainant was informed that the said progremme was cancelled. The complainant further stated that o.p. never organized any tour programme and though the complainant raised objection and wanted to have the money paid by them but o.p. did not agree for which complainant had prayed for compensation as well as return of the money.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. engaged in hospitality business and not travel and tourism business and the complainants are not a consumer therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further stated that in the agreement itself stated that the complainants are educated and they on their own volition entered into the agreement and paid the amount of Rs.55,000/- followed by payment amounting to Rs.5000/- in two EMIs and an agreement was entered into between the parties to that effect wherein the terms and conditions were clearly and specifically mentioned. The complainants executed the said terms and conditions after going through the same. In view of the said fact the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainants had taken the membership of o.p.
- Whether the o.p. mislead the complainants for acceptance of the membership of o.p.
- Whether the complainants were given any service by o.p.
- Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that the complainants on the basis of the assurance given by o.p. that they would be provided by accommodation and also they make arrangement for various programme of the club and allured the complainant in such manner the complainant had to accept the membership but subsequently with the passing of days, months, etc. the complainants found that no programme was organized and no activities were found on the basis of the o.p., moreover complainants were not provided any accommodation for their stay without payment of any cost. Once the complainants were informed that o.p. was going to organize a programme on 31.3.12 but after just half an hour before the said programme the complainants were informed that the programme had been cancelled. The o.p. never organized any tour programme and when asked as to why the complainants were not provided with the facility as assured by o.p. to which o.p. told the complainants that hidden cost were involved and for lodging and also for availing of the tourist places complainants will have to pay the charges. The complainants wrote several letters to o.p. but no reply was given. Being dissatisfied with the non performance and for creating false assurance by o.p. the complainant demanded the amount to which o.p. denied for which complainant had to file this case praying for relief.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainants had entered into an agreement with o.p. and accepted the membership on their accord and no influence or coercion were exercised and once the complainants entered into the agreement complainants cannot deviate from the said agreement and the same is binding upon the complainants. Apart from the said fact o.p. is not travel agency or they do not organize any programme and whenever complainants being educated persons entered into the said agreement they were fully aware regarding the function of the said club, subsequently by raising false allegation against the o.p. cannot be believed and in order to squeeze the money from o.p. such false case was filed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears in most of the cases which are pending against the o.p. in this Forum there are same allegations against the o.p. that they influenced the parties in such manner by alluring them for providing with accommodation in big cities without payment of any charge after acceptance of membership and other benefits are also assured and with the enticement of such assurance the parties are enticed to accept the membership. Most of the cases it is found that he senior citizens are the target of o.p. and by taking advantage on their advance age and after coming to know the status of the parties o.p. gives false promise to the parties by showing them some places of interest in big cities where they have their own guest houses which will be provided to the members for their short stay by providing all sorts of amenities but ultimately no such facilities are provided and also assures the parties to organize different programmes with the active participation of members but no such programme ever held by o.p. By such misdeed on the part of the o.p. itself creates confusion in the mind of the members and most of the cases the members pray for return of the amount paid by them including the cost of mental agony and litigation expenses. Here in this case the same thing had happened and the complainant no.2 is a retired police officer and the complainant no.1 is the wife and they jointly file this case with the same allegation that they were not provided with any accommodation or any programme was organized by o.p. within the several months of acceptance of the membership though assured by o.p., therefore we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. and also unfair trade practice committed by o.p. and as such, the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.448/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund the complainants a sum of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand) only along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
