Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/356/2018

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Journeys Resorts Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Singla

28 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/356/2018
Date of Institution	:	27/07/2018
Date of Decision	:	28/03/2019

 

 

Jarnail Singh S/o Joginder Singh, R/o H.No.1235, Sec.30-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.     Journeys Resorts Private Limited, earlier Branch Office at SCO No.37, Sector 18-C, 1^st Floor, near SBI, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Manager/ Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office: 50, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi – 110003.

 

2.     Journeys Resorts Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Manager/ Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office: 50, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi – 110003.

 

3.     Journeys Resorts Private Limited, through its Managing Director/Manager/ Authorized Signatory, Corporate Office: I.T. Composite Towers, Plot No.1, I.D.C. Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon – 122001.

 

4.     Manjeet Kaur, Venue Manager (Former), Journeys Resorts Private Limited, earlier Branch Office at SCO No.37, Sector 18-C, 1^st Floor, near SBI, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Manager/ Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office: 50, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi – 110003.

 

5.     Sandeep Mahajan, Branch Manager (Former), Journeys Resorts Private Limited, earlier Branch Office at SCO No.37, Sector 18-C, 1^st Floor, near SBI, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Manager/ Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office: 50, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi – 110003.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Karan Singla, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Parties ex-parte.

 

PER DR.S.K.SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         In brief, believing the statements and representations of the Opposite Parties about their travel-cum-hotel packages for vacations within the country as well as aboard, the Complainant selected JHP-5 Years Mini Travel Plan package in which he was assured of one year DAE Gold Membership on the basis of which the Complainant and his family could enjoy stay of four nights five days in any DAE property in the USA. The Opposite Parties charged the Complainant INR 75,000/- for five years in advance on 26.6.2016 towards package to be provided by the Opposite Parties, which the Complainant paid in installment from 24.07.2016 to 24.05.2017 (along with interest). The Complainant was issued a Certificate of Membership and Smart Card. In June 2017, the Complainant decided to visit USA along with his family and thus requested the Opposite Parties for hotel booking at Anaheim, California, USA on their Customer Care Number, wherefrom the Complainant was informed that he was not yet registered with DAE and further his e-mail id and phone number had not been updated in their system. The Complainant accordingly, sent an e-mail to Opposite Parties on 06.05.2017 providing his e-mail id and mobile phone number. However, when needful was not done, the Complainant again sent a reminder on 11.05.2017. The Complainant thereafter sent an e-mail to the Opposite Parties on 20.05.2017 complaining about deficiency in service on their part, but to no avail. Eventually, the Complainant went to the office of the Opposite Parties, where Opposite Party No.5 assured the Complainant that registration with DAE would take time, but in the meantime he on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 get a hotel booked for Complainant at Anaheim on Complainant’s further paying Rs.27,000/-.  It has been alleged that on 02.06.2017, the Complainant went to USA without being provided with accommodation at DAE and by incurring further expenditure of Rs.27,000/- for Hotel accommodation on the insistence of Opposite Party No.5 on the assurance that the arranged accommodation was just 15 minutes drive from the main city center of Anaheim. However, the Complainant was shocked when on reaching the USA he learnt that the accommodation reserved for him at Anaheim was 200 miles away from the place he had been promised the hotel accommodation. The Complainant did not stay at the place reserved by the Opposite Parties due to inconvenient distance and resultantly had to incur huge expenses to hire hotel accommodation immediately. When the Complainant returned to India, he received an e-mail on 9.8.2017 from DAE that they had registered him as its basic member; whereas Complainant had been promised gold membership by the Opposite Parties as per Agreement Annexure C-3. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties did not turn up in spite of service, as such, they were proceeded ex-parte.
4.         Complainant led evidence.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
6.         Significantly, the Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the Complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7.         In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have initiate steps to redress the grievance of the Complainant promptly, which they failed to do. At any rate, the Opposite Parties even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant. 
8.         Pertinently, the action of the Opposite Parties in not providing DAE Gold Membership to the Complainant besides charging him Rs.27,000/- extra for holding out that they would arrange suitable hotel accommodation near City Centre Anaheim instead providing said accommodation at a remote and inappropriate place more than 200 miles away from City Centre Anaheim not only amounts to deficiency in service, but is a grave malpractice under the Consumer Protection Act.
9.         In the light of above discussion, this consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed.  Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under :-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.75,000/- plus Rs.27,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment(s), till realization.

(ii)    To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

(iii)   To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

10.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) from the date of respective payments till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/03/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”