STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.Country Club India Limited (CCIL), through its Authorized Signatory/AGM (Sales & Marketing), Hotel Aqua Marine, adjoining Hotel Aroma, Sector-22, Chandigarh. – Now through its Legal Officer, Delhi Branch situated at #25, Community Centre, 1^st

2.Country Club India Limited (CCIL), through its Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office at Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad, Opposite Secretariat, Hyderabad-500063 - Now through its Legal Officer, Delhi Branch situated at #25, Community Centre, 1^st

 …Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur W/o S. Sarabjit Singh, R/o H.No.1139, Sector 69, Mohali (Punjab).

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   

Argued by: 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

“13.

[a]   To make necessary changes in the agreement, as per the promise made to the Complainant, or refund Rs.70,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its deposit, till it is paid;

[b]   To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]   To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

14. 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant alongwith her husband attended introduction-cum-promotional meeting at Aroma Hotel, Chandigarh on 2.4.2012 and they were given Code No.MLJVS003. It was stated that the complainant and her husband were informed about the vacation membership plans and entire vacation membership of CCIL, in detail, and many promises were made by the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that finding the Vacation Membership Plan of the Opposite Parties interesting, the complainant and her husband opted for a 10 years Vacation Member (Blue) and paid Rs.70,000/- as the entire payment of Membership, on the same day. It was told by the Opposite Parties, that this payment of Rs.70,000/- would be a onetime payment, inclusive of all taxes and no amount except the annual maintenance charges would be claimed from her (Receipts Annexure C-2 to C-4). It was further stated that the complainant also signed an approval form, and she was given a copy of the draft agreement, which was to be entered into between the parties (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that the complainant and her husband were also given two gift vouchers (Annexure C-6 & C-7). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had assured the complainant and her husband that all terms and conditions, as promised during the promotional meeting, if not incorporated, in the draft agreement, would be incorporated in the final agreement later on, to be signed between the parties. It was further stated that believing the assurance of the Opposite Parties, the complainant and her husband did not go through the terms and conditions mentioned in the draft agreement. It was further stated that on going through the draft agreement, on the next day, the complainant and her husband found various deviations and contradictions in the terms and conditions, as incorporated in the draft agreement, which were explained and agreed upon/promised between the parties during the promotional meeting held on 02.04.2012. Such points of conflict, were detailed in Para No.4 of the complaint viz. Membership fee of Rs.70,000/- was inclusive of all taxes, No rules and regulations for members or byelaws prevailing in CCIL were told or explained, Option for blue type plan, options of availing vacation plans, DAE USA or RCI properties in India and abroad, CCIL owned properties in Bangkok, Bali, Dubai and Sri Lanka opened for 10 years, 3 buffet meals + evening snacks for Rs.457/- per day per person during vacation, annual maintenance charges of Rs.7,500/- could go upto maximum Rs.8,000/- during next ten years, access to all properties owned by RCI and DAE (USA) group all over India and abroad, gift vouchers shall be extended for one more year uptill September 2013 etc.. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never disclosed that the complainant could not bring food or beverages in the club/resort.

3.          

4.          

5.   

6.          The complainant filed replication wherein, she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated the same, contained in the written version. 

7.          

8.

9.          

10.        

11.        

12.  

13.          

14.        

15.            . In this view of the matter, this objection of the appellants/Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16.         

17.       The contention of the respondent/complainant that Unit Type – (A)Studio was ticked by the appellants/Opposite Parties, when the respondent/complainant has not produced copy of agreement (Exhibit C-5) in complete form, gets falsified from the fact that holiday gift vouchers (Exhibits C-6 and C-7) offered to them by the appellants/Opposite Parties on payment of nominal administrative fee of Rs.4,000/-, were in respect of Studio unit, which accommodates 02 adults and 02 kids below 9 years.

18.        

19. 

20.        

21.        

22.        

23.        

Pronounced.

January 24, 2014.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.499 of 2013)

Argued by: 

Dated the

ORDER

           Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, before the District Forum, has been dismissed with no order as to costs.