DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.144/23
Gaytri Kochhar W/o Sudhir Kochhar
B-6/27/2 Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Grand Hilton Vacation Private Limited
(Name changed to Grand Holiday Park Vacation
Private Limited)
1898/C, F/F, Udai Chand Marg,
Kotla Mubarkpur
New Delhi-110003. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Shri Sudhir Kochhar, AR for the complainant.
Present: None for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution: 18.05.2023
Date of Order : 31.07.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs.1,30,625/- with interest @12% per annum from 26.02.2022 till realization, Rs.25175.76 for deficiency in service, Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation charges.
- It is stated by the complainant that the complainant took membership of OP i.e Grand Hilton Vacation after paying Rs.1,30,625/- towards membership. Copy of the receipt issued by OP is annexed as annexure-A. It is stated that complainant utilized their services from 01.04.2022 till 03.04.2022 at Ranikhet and found the OP to be deficient in their services.
- It is stated amongst other grievances that though two double rooms were confirmed but both the rooms were not same. One room was deluxe and the other room was premium however, in reality they were sub-standard rooms with minimal facilities. It is further stated that complainant was denied extra beds that were committed and though it was informed by the OP that the complainant would get a 30% discount on food bill but he had to pay 100% with GST.
- It is further stated that OP used the brand name Grand Hilton to sell membership however the company’s name was changed to Grand Holiday Park Vacation P. Ltd. on 13.12.2021. The company did not disclose this fact which amounts of unfair trade practice. It is further stated that that OP is including in giving misleading advertisements as defined under section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
- It is further stated that the practice of the OP in not refunding the advance paid amounts to unfair contract as defined under section 2 (46).
- It is further stated that as per section 12(3) Companies Act 2013 when a company has changed its name during last two years it shall paint or affix or print the former name or names so changed along with the new name.
- It is further stated by the complainant that he approached the OP for refund and was promised that the refund would be initiated in case of dissatisfaction however, it has not been done.
- It is further stated that the conduct of the OP is unjust, unwarranted and the OP is guilty of deficiency of service for not fulfilling their promise as also for mental torture and harassment.
- Notice was issued to the OP, however since the reply was not filed in time therefore right of OP to file reply was closed. Complainant has placed on record the payment receipt Rs.1,30,625/-. It is also seen that despite opportunity none appeared for OP at the time of arguments. Contentions of the complainant are unrebutted. It is seen that the complainant took the membership of the OP only on 26.02.2022. None of the parties have placed the agreement executed between the parties on record therefore, to strike balance of justice OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant after keeping Rs.30,625/- towards their administrative expenses as well as holiday at Ranikhet though separate payments were made at Ranikhet. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- be paid to the complainant with interest @5% per annum from 22.05.2022 when the complainant first made the request of refund till realization. No other relief is found to be due to the complainant.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
