Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/38

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDERJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

05 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Asbestos 

 

Date of Decision: 05.05.2016

 

 

First Appeal No.38/2013  

(Arising out of the order dated 01.10.2012 passed in Complaint Case No.11/2011 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (East)

 

In the matter of:

 

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd.,

Mahindra Towers,

17/18, Patullas Road, Chennai-600002.

 

ALSO AT:

Mahindra Towers,

5^th Floor, 2-A, Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi -11006.

                           ....Appellant

 

Versus

 

Shree Inderjeet Singh

R/o D-307, Anand Vihar,

New Delhi-110092.

 

….….....Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member.

 

 

1.    Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

 

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(New Delhi), (in short the “District Forum”), in C.C. No.11/2011, appellant herein i.e. the OP before the District Forum has filed the present appeal.
2. Briefly the relevant facts are as under: :-

           A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short “the Act”) was filed by the respondent herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that in the month of March 2006, he was approached by the staff of the appellant/OP and allured him for taking its membership. They promised him holiday package, camera with printer, food voucher of Rs.5,000/-, 3 weeks complementary domestic package and one RCI. It was alleged that on getting allured by the said offer he had paid Rs.29,880/- vide cheque No.160180 on 22.03.2006. It was alleged that the officer of the appellant/OP had assured him that on realization of the payment of Rs.29,880/- he would be provided with the aforesaid gifts. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant further made payments by way of EMI to the appellant/OP. It was alleged that after realization of payment of Rs.29,880/- no gift was provided to him. On being enquired, it was assured that the same would be given at the earliest. The respondent/complainant had alleged that on checking his account statement he was shocked to find that without giving any benefits, appellant/OP had withdrawn substantial amount by way of EMIs upto October 2007 from his account. The respondent/complainant had sent emails for getting the gifts but the same were not given. Ultimately he had asked for refund of the amount of Rs.1,99,965/- which he had given to the appellant/OP. When the aforesaid amount was not refunded, the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint for refund of the aforesaid amount with interest @9% alongwith compensation and litigation charges.

3. Appellant/OP had contested the case by filing the written statement wherein it was alleged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP. It was alleged that the Kodak camera and printer dock had already been given to the respondent/complainant. It was further alleged that there was no question of giving other gifts to the respondent/complainant as the respondent/complainant had not paid full EMIs nor the annual subscription fee under the contract. It was alleged that since there was breach on the part of the respondent/complainant he was not entitled for any refund. It was further alleged that the gifts were to be given only on the payment of the entire EMIs by the respondent/complainant.

 

4. Both the parties had given evidence in the form of their respective affidavits.
5. After hearing both the parties, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/OP to refund the entire amount deposited by the respondent/complainant with interest @9% and further awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present appeal is filed.
7. Ld. counsel for the appellant/OP had contended that the Ld. District Forum has wrongly held in the impugned order that there was admission on the part of the appellant/OP for lapse on its part in not providing the facilities by relying on communication dated 06.10.2009. It is contended that there is no such communication in this regard by the appellant/OP. It is further contended that there was no admission on the part of the appellant/OP at any time as has been noted in the impugned order as such the same is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant who is appearing in person has submitted that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and the same has been passed after considering the material on record and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is admitted position that the respondent/complainant had taken membership from the appellant/OP by filling and by signing the membership form on 21.03.2006. It is also admitted position that at the time of taking membership of appellant/OP the respondent/complainant had paid Rs.29,88,0/- by way of cheque details of which have been given above. Thereafter, respondent/complainant also made payment by way of EMIs of Rs.5,865/- each for about 18 months. It is also not denied that the appellant/OP had assured for giving gifts which are mentioned above while signing the application form for taking membership of appellant/OP. We have perused the application form; even on the said form names of the gifts which have been mentioned in the complaint, have been mentioned.
10. The only stand taken by the appellant/OP is that the same were promised to be given after receiving the entire payment from respondent/complainant. On the other hand, stand of the respondent/complainant is that it was promised while filling the membership form dated 21.06.2009 that on clearing of the cheque of Rs.29,880/- the aforesaid gifts will be given to him. We have perused the membership form. In the said membership form names of the gifts have been written in hand bearing signature of official of appellant/OP. If the same were to be given after clearing of entire payment of EMIs as is alleged then why it was not specifically mentioned in the membership form. No documents have been shown by the appellant/OP that it was clarified to the respondent/complainant that alleged gifts were to be given after clearing all the EMIs. Further it is admitted position that the camera with printer dock has already been given to the respondent/complainant on 07.07.2009. There is a letter of appellant/OP on record. If the gifts were to be given after receiving the entire payment as has been alleged then why the aforesaid gifts were given prior to receiving entire EMIs. No explanation has been given in this regard. The respondent/complainant after filling the membership form has been demanding the gifts promised by the appellant/OP, but all the gifts as promised were not given.  There is an email on record sent by respondent/complainant to appellant/OP on 21.05.2009, which has been taken by Ld. District Forum as letter dated 06.10.2009 of appellant/OP. At the bottom of said email date 06.10.2009 is also mentioned. It appears that due to said reason, it has come in the impugned as letter dated 06.10.2009. The aforesaid email reads as under:

As per discussion regarding redressal of my grievance in respect of providing gift, food voucher, three weekly domestic and one RC international package. And your office and your goodself also admitted for lapse of providing the above due to the miscommunication. Now your goodself office is ready to provide the same at the earliest as per the terms made at the time of membership.

 

I am ready to continue my membership provided above all complimentary gifts may be made in advance.

 

Pursuant thereto two gifts i.e. camera and printer dock were sent respondent/complainant on 07.07.1009.

 

11. In these circumstances it has been rightly held by the Ld. District forum that there is an unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant/OP. The respondent/complainant has given substantial payment to the appellant/OP, despite that the gifts as promises were not given. No illegality is seen in the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum whereby it is held that the appellant/OP had faulted to fulfil its obligation by providing facilities to the respondent/complainant. The Ld. District forum has rightly ordered for refund of amount deposited by the respondent/complainant with 9% interest. Even the compensation has been rightly awarded.  There is no merit in this appeal. The same stands dismissed.
12. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the District Forum(East) for information and keeping it on record for compliance

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

•  

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member