Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/82/2021

Country Club Hospitality & Holidays Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dinesh Kumar Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeep Sharma & Rohit Malik Adv.

24 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	82 of 2021
Date of Institution	19.10.2021
Date of Decision	24.02.2022

Country Club/Country Vacations/CCHHL, SCO 44-45, 2nd Floor, Sector-9D, Chandigarh160015 through Managing Director, Country Club/ Country Vacations/ CCHHL, 6-3-1219A, 2nd Floor, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016.

  …..Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Gian Sarup Sharma, Flat No.702, GH-5, Sector-24, Panchkula-134116

                                                                   …..Respondent/Complainant         

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Respondent in person.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 07.12.2020, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint, with the following directions: -

“(i)   Refund Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of its deposit till its realization to the complainant.

(ii)   Pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

(iii)  Pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

7.   This order be complied with by the OP, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of other directions.”

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party is dealing in the hospitality business, providing free holidays to its members at their own resorts/associates properties.  It was stated that in the month of February, 2017, on their telephonic call regarding winning of some gifts, he attended Opposite Party’s presentation on 10.02.2017, wherein numerous benefits of buying the membership were explained. It was further stated that some additional benefits were also applicable for taking instant decision then and there, only by making 100% payment which include membership worth Rs.1,49,000/- at a discounted rate of Rs.1,15,000/-.  It was further stated that the complainant bought the membership (CVCDGIVIOLB232976) by making 100% cash payment of Rs.1,15,000/- vide receipt dated 11.02.2017 (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that some features applicable with the membership plan are described as under:-

1. Entitlement of 6N/7Days free holidays per annum to be availed at their 4/5* resorts/associates properties in a span of 15 years which include 10 regular and 5 complimentary holidays. Local taxes/ utility charges to be applicable for Associates properties.
2. AMC of Rs 8,500/- plus taxes (Rs 10,030/-) to be paid for availing regular holidays and to be paid only before availing the holidays. No AMC applicable on complimentary holidays.
3. Features like saving, borrow, split, gift etc. are available which means that the holidays can be deferred to the next year or can be borrowed from the next year quota by paying the AMC in advance for that year.

3. It was further stated that 4N/5Days holidays were booked through the Opposite Party at Bali (Indonesia) vide voucher No.VAC0069136 dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that being the associated property, the applicable taxes/utility charges amounting Rs.7,958/- were paid vide receipt No.292617 dated 24.11.2017 (AnnexureC-3). It was further stated that in the third week of December, while going through the website of the hotel booked by the Opposite Party at Bali, it was found that the prevailing room tariff was only around Rs.9,200/- for 4N/5Days inclusive of all taxes for the same accommodation as booked by Opposite Party. It was further stated that the booking may cost him around Rs.18,000/- if Opposite Party utilized his 1^st AMC worth Rs.10,000/- against these holidays. The matter was taken up with Opposite Party on 25.12.2017 and the Venue Manager of the Opposite Party confirmed that No AMC was to be made applicable against the Bali Trip as this is a complimentary holiday already covered under Opposite Party’s email dated 12^th February, 2017 (Annexure C-4). It was further stated that on the insistence of the complainant, he confirmed the same again vide his email dated 25^th December, 2017 (Annexure C-5) and as such the holidays at Bali were availed from 5^th to 9^th February, 2018. It was further stated that on 24.10.2018, during a telephonic conference call with the Opposite Party Hyderabad & Chandigarh, he was asked to clear the AMC for booking of next holidays, and as per his knowledge, 1^st AMC was still intact and was supposed to be utilized for the next trip, but the Opposite Party intimated that the same has already stands utilized against Bali trip. It was further stated that the complainant raised the issue with Opposite Party Hyderabad & Chandigarh vide his emails dated 25.10.2018 and 12.11.2018 vide Annexures C-6 & C-7, but the Opposite Party refused to reverse the same. It was further stated that the Opposite Party has conducted unfair trade practice by misleading the complainant vide emails dated 12.02.2017 & 25.12.2017 confirming that Bali holidays are complimentary, but utilized the AMC amount of Rs10,000/- towards these holidays without his knowledge/intimation/permission, thereby unfairly charged Rs.17,958/-, for the accommodation available directly for just Rs.9,200/- that too after charging Rs.1,15,000/- as membership fee. It was further stated that the complainant lodged the complaint No.1151302 dated 11.02.2019 to this effect with National Consumer Forum (Annexure C-8) and also served a legal notice dated 07.04.2019 (Annexure C-9) upon the Opposite Party, followed by a reminder dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure C-10), but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
4. The Opposite Party filed reply and submitted and denied that the complainant was offered some additional benefits for taking instant decision then and there only by making 100% per cent payment.  It was stated that there were two options under the agreement in respect of the membership fees i.e. full membership fee for Rs.1,45,000/- in which he had the option to pay the EMIs and cash out price of Rs.1,15,000/- in which he had the option to make the cash out payment within 30 days of entering into the agreement and he paid the payment of Rs.1,15,000/- in two parts i.e. Rs.90,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively.  It was further stated that after the execution of the agreement and confirmation on the welcome call, the welcome kit containing the membership cards, welcome letter was sent which were duly received by the complainant.  It was further stated that as per Clause 1 of the agreement, the complainant was entitled to 6 Nights 7 Days each year holiday vacation at the owned and associated properties of the Opposite Party’s Company for a period of 10 years and not 15 years and as per Clause 9 of the agreement, the complainant was not entitled to any complimentary holiday, therefore, there is no question of applicability of annual maintenance charges on complimentary holidays. It was further stated that the complainant booked the vacation for Bali and paid the utility charges amounting to Rs.7,958/- on his own free will. It was further denied that while going to the website of hotel booked by the Opposite Party at Bali in 3^rd week of December, it was found that prevailing room tariff was around Rs.9,200/- for 5 nights and 7 days inclusive of all taxes.  It was further stated that it was clearly mentioned in the agreement that annual maintenance charges are payable from the date of agreement itself and needs to be cleared before availing any vacation and failure to pay the annual maintenance charges or other dues will be a default and no facility can be used by the member till the dues are cleared.  It was further stated that the Venue Manager of Opposite Party did not confirm the complainant that No Annual Maintenance Charges were to be applicable against Bali trip. It was further stated that 12^th February, 2017 was Sunday and email dated 12.02.2017 also mentions that it was sent at 11:34 AM on Sunday on which the office of Opposite Party was closed and, therefore, the Opposite Party was not bound by any such email sent by any employee of Opposite Party acting ultra-vires to his employer. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Complainant in person and Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Party, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Party.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and respondent in person, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. On a perusal of the documents, we find that the learned District Commission has passed the judgment being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not warrant the interference of this Commission. We observe that the respondent was fascinated by false exaggerated promises of the appellants regarding provision of vacations facilities on gaining their membership. Accordingly, the respondent had paid huge amount of Rs.1,15,000/- vide receipt dated 11.02.2017 (Annexure C-1), but the appellants even after getting such a huge amount, failed to provide such facilities alongwith other extra special benefits, as per the features of Special Membership (additional benefits) sent by an e-mail dated 12.02.2017, the respondent can avail any six destinations for 6 Nights 7 Days complimentary stay by paying the applicable taxes per night. Accordingly, the respondent had availed the trip of 4 Nights and 5 Days for Bali from 05.02.2018 to 09.02.2018. However, the appellants utilized the Annual Maintenance Contract of Rs.10,000/- against the said complimentary trip of Bali without consent/permission of the respondent. Though the respondent had already paid the applicable taxes/utility charges amounting to Rs.7,958/- vide receipt dated 24.11.2017 irrespective of the fact that the same accommodation was available to him at Rs.9200/-, if booked directly. The learned District Commission held that no prudent person would like to continue the membership of the Clubs/Resorts when the facilities/accommodations offered by the appellant are available to him at much cheaper rates than the offered rate by the appellant. Therefore, it was held by the learned District commission that the Complainant/Respondent was right in seeking refund of the membership purchase and non-refund of the same amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and hence, the complaint was allowed.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
12. This Commission is inclined to fall in line with the decision of the District Commission and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
13. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application 763 of 2021 for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

24.02.2022

      

 

                                            

                                                                              Sd/-     

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                      Sd/-        

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                                  Sd/-                                           

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

GP