Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/870/2017

Pankaj Kumar Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rishi Karan Kakar Adv.

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	870 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	08.11.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	14.11.2017

 

 

 

 

Pankaj Kumar Gautam son of Sh.J.C.Gautam, Resident of House No.2016, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

                               …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited, SCO No.188-189, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Office Manager.

2]  Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited, Mahindra Towers, Second Floor 17/18, Patullous Road, Chennai-600002, Tamil Nadu through its Managing Director.

                      ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

                               

Argued by :    

Sh.Rishi Karan Kakar, Adv. for complainant.

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant availed a Holiday package for a total amount of Rs,2,54,260/- from OPs and paid an initial amount of Rs.25,426/- on 30.12.2009 (Ann.C-1 to C-3). It is averred that the complainant was regular in making all payments, as per schedule of Opposite Parties, through ECS from his bank (Ann.C-4).  It is also averred that the complainant was informed that he could avail the membership package time & again every year commencing from 1.8.2011.  It is further averred that the complainant had availed the White season of the year and apartment classification was Studio apartment for three adults, apart from free two nights and three days package at any Club Mahindra Resorts.  It is pleaded that the complainant has been approaching the OPs for making reservations on the holiday package support system but on all occasions has been informed that the Resorts desired by the complainant are not available on the specified dates and on every occasions, when the complainant asked for any alternative dates, as regards the availability of the desired resort, was informed that the alternative dates would be communicated whenever feedback is available from the concerned branch.  However, no such communication was made by the OPs.  It is also pleaded that the complainant was told that the Holidays package is valid till 31.7.2036 and that he could avail the facilities under the holiday package till then, but every time the availability of the resort is denied by the OPs.  It is further pleaded that the complainant had requested the OPs for refund of his amount, but the same was denied.  Alleging the above act of the OPs as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant on the point of admission of this complaint.

 

3]       Though it is a matter of record that the complainant availed membership of the OPs, which as per Annexure C-3 is valid from 1.8.2011 to 31.7.2036 and Ann.C-4 disclosing the payments made vide installments till 8.1.2015, but the complainant badly failed to satisfy this Forum that what cause of action has accrued in his favour giving rise to the filing of the present complaint and also when the cause of action accrued in his favour. The complainant has straightway filed the present complaint claiming for the refund of an amount of Rs.2,54,260/-, which he paid to the Opposite Parties vide installments, without placing on record any evidence to corroborate his allegations that he could not avail the benefits accrued out of the membership on the desired dates, as were not made available by the OPs, when were approached for the same on numerous occasions. It is claimed that the availability of the resort was denied by the OPs whenever were approached.  The allegations set out in the present complaint are mere bald assertions. Certainly, the bald assertions of the complainant cannot be relied upon as he to prove his allegations by leading sufficient documentary evidence on record, which is lacking in this case. Therefore, the present complaint being not maintainable, at this stage, is hereby dismissed in limine.    

         The certified copy of this order be forwarded to the complainant, free of charge and file be consigned to record room. 

Announced

14^th November, 2017                          

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER