Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/117/2022

M/S GENIAL HOLIDAY CLUB - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANWALJIT KAUR - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV AGGARWAL

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	117 of 2022
Date of Institution	29.08.2022
Date of Decision	21.10.2022

 

M/s Genial Holiday Club Pvt. Ltd., SCO 118-119, 1st Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Director Sukdeep Singh.

    .…..Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Kanwaljit Kaur wife of Sh. Paramjit Singh Gill, residents of House No.109, Sector-28/A, Chandigarh.

                                                                   …..Respondent/Complainant         

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

 Sh. Paramjit Singh Gill, Authorised Representative of
Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur, respondent.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 12.07.2022, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint, with the following directions: -

“a]   To refund an amount of Rs.1,27,000/- to  the Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit, till realization.

b]   To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants; 

c]       To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

7.    The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-, apart from the above relief.”

 

2. The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party contacted the complainant on 04.05.2018 through her mobile number and by stating that she was selected for a free 3N/4D holiday at Genial Club Resort for Dharamsala, Jaipur, Goa etc. and requested to collect the holiday voucher at Hotel Nagpal Regency, Ludhiana.  It was stated that the complainant alongwith her husband went to the venue and the Opposite Party offered Apartment Blue Membership whereby 2 adults and 2 kids were allowed 10 weeks of stay in next 10 years till April, 2018 in any of the Genial Holiday Club 4/5 Star Resorts across India and abroad. It was further stated that the complainant become a Member of the Opposite Party-Club by paying membership fees of Rs.1.27 lakhs through credit card and after two months, on 02.07.2018 the complainant received the courier containing the membership card, certificate etc.   It was further stated that the complainant sent an e-mail to the Opposite Party on 30.01.2019 and asked the Opposite Party about their website/app where she could see the resorts and plan her vacation accordingly, but to no effect.  It was further stated that the complainant again sent an e-mail dated 19.02.2019 asking the Opposite Party to provide the resorts for a vacation in Kerala from 24.03.2019 to 26.03.2019, but to her surprise, the Opposite Party sent one resort namely Misty Mountain Resort, Munnar and that too when confirmed from the resort itself through e-mail it was a 2/3 star resort.  It was further stated that despite writing letters/e-mails, the Opposite Party failed to provide a single 4/5 star resorts and finally, the complainant had to book her vacation in Kerala on her own expenses despite having paid the membership fee. It was further stated that the complainant sent numerous e-mails to the Opposite Party regarding their deficiency in services, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Party filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that the terms and conditions of the membership certificate nowhere mentioned regarding the star rating of any property offered by them.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party itself is an established holiday club having members throughout the country and has a remarkable reputation in terms of services and holiday experiences. It was further stated that the Opposite Party has very transparently provided the list of hotels and resorts on its website in order to avoid any kind of ambiguity to its members and at the time of issuing the membership to the complainant, they have clearly explained regarding the reciprocals and not owing properties at various destinations. It was further stated that the membership guidelines/rules of occupation clearly mention that the Opposite Party provide various categories of resorts and hotel partners in India and provide the timeshare owner week at various categories of apartments.  It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Complainant in person and Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against Opposite Party, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Party.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and authorized representative of the respondent, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. On a perusal of the learned District Commission’s record, it is observed that the respondent/complainant took membership of appellant’s company by paying huge amount of Rs.1,27,000/- on 05.05.2018. It was the grouse of the respondent that bookings at the desired destinations having 4/5 star rating not given to her despite receipt of huge amount of Rs.1,27,000/-. Further, the respondent had not furnished the complete information with regard to the property as per membership availed by the respondent in order to exercise her choice. The appellants had also failed miserably to prove on record whether they have any tie-up with any of the agency who deals in hotel/restaurants business in order to provide rooms for the clients. This Commission does not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned District Commission and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Application 661 of 2022 for staying the operation of the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 also stands dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

21.10.2022

      

                                            

                                                                              Sd/-     

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                      Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                            Sd/-

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

                                                                               Sd/-

[PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

GP