Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/564

MANU PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DESTINATION RESORT & ANRS - Opp.Party(s)

16 Sep 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution: 10.09.2013

Complaint Case. No.564/13                                          Date of order:      16 .09.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Manu Prakash Chamber No. E-309, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.                                                                                                                                             Complainant

 

VERSUS

1.        M/s  Destination Resort India Pvt. Ltd. 1006, 10^thFloor, Vishwadeep Tower, District  Centre Janak puri, New Delhi-110058.

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.1

2.        Mountain Club Resort India Pvt.  Ltd. 61, June Estate, Bhimtal, District Nainital, Uttaranchal.

                                                                                                Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Shri Manu Prakash named above here in the complainant has filed the present complaint against M/s Destination Resort India Pvt. Ltd. and another  herein after referred  as the opposite parties  for directions to the  opposite parties  to refund Rs.19,500/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties with interest , pay compensation of Rs.33,000/-  spent on conveyance etc.,Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience caused by the opposite parties to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation  expenses.

The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are that the complainant on 18.01.2013 took white season  membership no. VMC0052  of the opposite  party no. 2 through the opposite party no. 1 for  two adults and two kids  on payment of Rs.19,500/-  for trial  offer for nine days  and ten nights. On  18.05.2015  the complainant  asked the opposite party no. 1 for two days  and two  nights booking in  Den Corbett and  three days and three nights  in Alpine club Nainital. They refused booking on the ground that the complainant is not eligible for booking in month of June and asked him to book after 10^thJuly. 

That the complainant immediately on 18.05.2013 and again on 22.05.2013 called Mr. Amit Sharma Marketing  Manager.  He asked the complainant to contact Mr. Shahbaz Khan Venue Manager.  On 22.05.2013 the complainant contacted Shahbaz Khan . He asked for two days  for confirmation of booking.  The complainant on 26.05.2013 again called Mr. Shahbaz Khan. Who told the complainant that due to busy schedule he could not confirm the booking and asked the complainant to send details on e-mail.   The complainant sent e-mail and reminders of the e-mail on 26.05.2013, 31.05.2013, 04.06.2013, 06.06.2013 and 12.06.2013.  The complainant also called on mobile of Sh. Shahbaz Khan on 29.05.2013, 1.06.2013, 08.06.2013, 11.06.2013 and 12.06.2013. Lastly Mr.Shahbaz Khan told the complainant that booking is not available in June 2013.  Therefore, on 13.06.2013 the complainant called to Den Corbett Resort directly. They informed the complainant that rooms are available in their resort.  Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the  present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to  refund Rs. 19,500/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties with interest, pay compensation of Rs. 33,000/-  spent on conveyance etc., Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience  caused by the opposite parties to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation  expenses. 

            Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties.  But despite service the opposite parties did not turn up.  Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.02.2014.

            When Sh. Manu Prakash complainant was asked to lead evidence he tendered his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint.    He also  relied upon  on line complaint receipt no. 102 dated 15.01.2013,  photo copy  of  some calculations, letter dated 15.03.2013  and  agreement between the complainant and the opposite party no.2.  From facts of the complaint and documents relied upon by the complainant the complainant has been able to show that on 08.01.2013 he paid sum of Rs. 19,500/- to the opposite party no.2 as membership part fee. The Parties entered into an agreement.  The complainant tried to book resorts of the opposite party no.2 for two days  and two  nights booking  in  Den Corbett and  three days and three nights  in Alpine club Nainital.

             We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. 

            The version of the complainant, his affidavit and documents  relied upon by him in ex-parte evidence have remained unrebutted and  unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted  and unchallenged documentary  record produced by the complainant.

            From perusal of receipt no.102 dated 15.01.2013 it reveals  that the complainant  paid Rs.19,500/- as part  payment  towards membership  of the opposite party no.2on 15.01.2013.

            It is worthwhile to reproduce clause no. 8 of declaration of the complainant annexed with agreement of the parties.  Which runs as under :-

Clause 8 of purchase declaration:-

“It is understood that the obligations of the Company shall using/take place in respect of agreement between Marketer and  purchaser only on Receipt  of full  amount of Consideration  and not  otherwise.”

            From bare reading of clause 8 of the purchase declaration annexed  with the agreement of the parties it is clear that the obligation of the opposite parties shall be enforceable on receipt of full amount.  From perusal of receipt dated 15.01 .2013 it is clear that the complainant has made part payment of Rs.19,500 only. Therefore, as per clause 8 of the purchase declaration the obligation of the opposite party is enforceable on an payment of full amount and we are of the opinion that the right of the complainant is not enforceable   against the opposite parties. Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

 Resultantly there is no merit in the complaint.  The complaint fails and is hereby dismissed.             

Order pronounced on :      16 .09.2017

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                               ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT