ADDITIONAL THANE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Room no. 428 and 429, Konkan Bhavan Annex Building, 4th floor,

C.B.D, Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614.

Complaint no.   151/2017

Filed On        18/08/2017

Decided on     08/03/2019

1. MR. Kamaleshchandra  Jayendrakumar  Vyas
2. Mrs. Bina Kamaleshchandra Vyas

Both r/o Flat No 101-A,

M/s Sambhav Tirth CHS Ltd.,

Plot No 44, Sector No 29,

Vashi,

Navi Mumbai                               ... Complainant

      Versus 

1.  M/s GoLeisure International Holidays Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Managing Directors

1. Mr. Prasad More and
2. Mr. Ashish Jagtap

      Both having Office at

Office No 1412 & 1414,

14^th Floor, Real Tech Park,

Sector No 30 A

Vashi,

Navi Mumbai                 . . . Opponent

BEFORE –  HON’BLE presiding MEMBER MR. TRYAMBAK A THOOL

      HON’BLE MEMBER MS GAURI M KAPSE

Advocates on record     

1. Advocate S R Chandre for Complainant
2. Advocate Pranav Shelar for Opposite Party

J  U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 08^th March 2019) 

Per   HON'ABLE MR. TRYAMBAK A. THOOL,   MEMBER.

1.                   This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is filed by the complainants named above alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

2.                   The case of the Complainant in short is that Opposite Party is a company engaged in the business of Global Travel and Holiday Management. The complainants booked a holiday plan for 30 years offered by opposite party which promised 6-7 days free holidays at various destinations with 4/5 star hotel accommodations and use of all the facilities on free of cost basis. They paid amount of Rs.3,16,000/- as full payment for the membership charges. The opposite party on 19/01/2017 executed agreement to that effect and issued membership and gift voucher entitling the complainants to avail 7 days holidays at the destinations mentioned in the voucher.  However when they booked holidays at Lonavala they were offered 2/3 star rated hotels instead of 4/5 star hotels as promised and hence they requested opposite party to give different hotel which was later provided to them with food. But when they reached at hotel no food was provided to them. Thereafter the complainant decided to take Tour to Malesia and Singapore and they enquired with opposite party. The Opposite party informed the complainants that all 4/5 star holes are booked and instead offered 2/3 star hotels. When complainant informed the opposite party that 4/5 star hotels were available they were told that if they want 4/5 star hotels they would have to reduce period of stay from 6 nights 7 days  to 5 nights 6 days and board the plane from Pune which was very inconvenient to they. Frustrated by the behavior of the opposite party they demanded their money back. However the opposite party did not refund they amount paid by them. They sent notice to Opposite Party which was not replied.  This caused tremendous mental agony and financial loss to them and constrained them to file the present complaint. With these averments the complainants prayed for direction to Opposite Party to refund amount of Rs.3,16,000/- with interest paid for membership, pay Rs. 6,00,000/- towards compensation for  mental agony and harassment and  Rs. 50,000/- towards litigations expenses.

3.                   After the complaint was admitted, a notice was issued by forum to the opposite parties directing it to file written version. The Opposite Party appeared and filed its written version. Opposite Party denied the allegations in toto and contended that the agreement between the parties is bound by both the parties and hence and the complainant are estopped   from deviating from the terms of agreement. Further  contended that  the opposite party had provided  complete free  accommodation  including free food at Dukes resort at Lonavala as per the choice of the complainant and that  complainant have not adduced any evidence to show that they have spent any amount on food at Lonavala because food was not provided to them by the hotel free of charge. It is denied by opposite party that after the agreement was signed complainants were offered one international tour anywhere in Asian countries with free Airfare. However it is admitted that  opposite party has issued a voucher  of seven days  accommodation  valid  for affiliated hotels / resorts  to opposite party  in Goa, Chandighar, Amritsar, Cochin, Mahabaleshwar and Indonesia only and this does not include  Malesia and Singapore to which complainants planed the trip.  However the opposite party tried to accommodate the complainant as much as possible though the complainant demanded the hotels beyond the scope of their package. It is further contended that the opposite party has tried to satisfy the complainant but their demands were vague and impractical. Thus the opposite party has not caused any deficiency in service and hence is not liable to provide any compensation to them and as per terms and conditions of agreement and when the complainants have utilised the facilities provided by opposite party at Lonavala no refund of membership fees can be granted. For all these reasons the complaint deserves to be dismissed.    

4.                   In order to substantial their claim the complainants filed their affidavit of evidence and relied on certain documents. The opposite party filed its affidavit of evidence and relied on certain documents.  Both parties filed their written arguments. 

5.                   Upon going through the evidence and written arguments submitted by the parties, following points arise for consideration.  We recorded our findings thereon for the reasons stated below.

 R e a s o n s

6. As to point No 1 and 2

                        We have gone through the evidence and heard learned Advocate for complainant.

7.                         It is the evidence of the complainant that Opposite Party is a company engaged in the business of Global Travel and Holiday Management. The complainants booked a holiday plan for 30 years offered by opposite party which promised 6-7 days free holidays at various destinations with 4/5 star hotel accommodations and use of all the facilities on free of cost basis.  Copy of brochure of opposite party is filed at Exhibit A. They paid amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- as full payment for the membership charges and obtained membership for them. Copy of Receipt of payment is filed at Exhibit B. The opposite party on 19/01/2017 executed agreement to that effect and issued membership and gift voucher entitling the complainants to avail 7 days holidays at the destinations mentioned in the voucher. Copy of Agreement and Voucher is filed at Exhibit C and D respectively. The opposite party also issued page describing membership benefits. Copy of membership Benefit is filed at Exhibit E. However when they booked holidays at Lonavala they were offered 2/3 star rated hotels instead of 4/5 star hotels as promised and hence they requested opposite party to give different hotel which was later provided to them with food. But when they reached at hotel no food was provided to them. Thereafter the complainant decided to take tour to Malesia and Singapore and they enquired with opposite party. The opposite party told that all 4/5 star holes are booked and instead offered 2/3 star hotels. When complainant informed the opposite party that 4/5 star hotels were available they were told that if they want 4/5 star hotels they have to reduce period of stay from 6 Nights 7 days  to 5 nights 6 days and board the plan from Pune which was very inconvenient to they. Frustrated by the behavior of the opposite party they demanded their money back. However the opposite party did not refund they amount paid by them. They sent notice to Opposite Party which was not replied. Copy of notice to opposite party is filed at Exhibit F. This act of opposite party caused tremendous mental agony and financial loss to them.

8.                         It is the evidence of Opposite Party No 1 Opposite Party denied the allegations in toto and contended that the agreement between the parties is bound by both the parties and hence and the complainant are estopped   from deviating from the terms of agreement. Further  contended that  the opposite party had provided  complete free  accommodation  including free food at Dukes resort at Lonavala as per the choice of the complainant and that complainant have not adduced any evidence to show that they have spent any amount on food at Lonavala because food was not provided to them by the hotel free of charge. It is denied by opposite party that after the agreement was signed complainants offered one international tour anywhere in Asian countries with free Airfare. However it is admitted that  opposite party has issued a voucher  of seven days  accommodation  valid  for affiliated hotels / resorts  to opposite party  in Goa, Chandighar, Amritsar, Cochin, Mahabaleshwar and Indonesia only and this does not include  Malesia and Singapore to which complainants planed the trip.  However the opposite party tried to accommodate the complainant as much as possible though the complainant demanded the hotels beyond the scope of their package. It is further contended that the opposite party has tried to satisfy the complainant but their demands were vague and impractical. Thus the opposite party has not caused any deficiency in service and hence is not liable to provide any compensation to them and as per Terms and Conditions of Agreement and when the complainants have utilised the facilities provided by opposite party at Lonavala no refund of membership fees can be granted. For all these reasons the complaint deserves to be dismissed

9.                   We have carefully scrutinized the evidence adduced by both parties. It is proved by evidence that complainants took the membership of the scheme offered by opposite party and paid Rs. 3,16,000/- to opposite party and entered into an agreement agreed and  signed by both parties. It is the evidence of complainant themselves that they availed the accommodation at hotel of their choice at Lonavala but were not provided food free of cost at the hotel. However they have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contention and hence their bare words only cannot be relied upon to accept this contention as true. Moreover the opposite party has fulfilled its promise of providing complementary package for Lonavala free of cost. As regards the another allegation about the international tour to Malesia and Singapore  it is to be noted that the voucher issued for free accommodation for seven days is valid only in GoLesure  International Holidays Pvt. Ltd affiliated Hotels / Resorts at Goa, Chandigarh, Amritsar, Cochin, Mahabaleshwar and Indonesia Only and not at other places. The opposite party offered to accommodate the complainant at Malesia and Singapore by reducing the stay period even though the voucher was not valid for those places as per Agreement. It is pertinent to note that this tour was not taken by the complainant and no services were taken at this instant hence question of deficiency in service does not arise.

10.                   The complainant has prayed for the refund of the membership fees paid by them for deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. However it is to be noted that it settled law that once the agreement is signed by both the parties, the agreement becomes binding on both of them. Here the complainants have voluntarily signed the agreement and paid the membership fees and one of the condition of the agreement is that the membership fees are not refundable for any reason. It is not the case here that the complainant has not availed the membership benefits. They have availed the facilities provided by opposite party   at Lonavala and hence complainant’s prayer for refund cannot be granted.

11.                   The Opposite Party relied on the following judgment  delivered by

Hon’ble Supreme Court (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 731 in M/s Bihar State Electricity  Board, Patna and other Vs Green Rubber Industries  and other decided on 24/11/1989 in  Civil appeal No 220 of 1987

12.                   The complainants relied on the following judgment  delivered by

Hon’ble State Commission Delhi in Appeal No A/07/815 in M/s Cox and Kings (I) Ltd Vs Raj Kumar Mittal and other decided on 07/01/2008

We have gone through these judgements,

13.                   As discussed above the complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Accordingly the case deserves to be dismissed.   

14.                  Upon considering entire evidence and hearing learned Advocates for complainant we reached to conclusion that the complainants clearly failed to establish their case and hence are not entitled to the reliefs sought. In result we record our findings on point number 1 and No  2   in negative  and pass following order

FINAL ORDER

1. The consumer complaint no.  151/2017 stands dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own cost. 
3. The copy of this order be sent free of cost to both  parties

Place –     Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai.

Date –      08/03/2019

                                                                                                   Sd/-                                  Sd/-

                                                                                   (MR. T. A. THOOL)          (MS G M KAPSE)       

                                                                                           Presiding Member                     Member                 

Addn. Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Navi Mumbai