J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The complainant’s case in brief is that the OP is a Leisure and Hospitality company, and OP No.2 is the branch office of OP No.1. In December, 2013, one Mr. Dilpreet Verma, an official of OP No.1 made the complainant, and persuaded him to be a member of the Club Mahindra. The membership cost being Rs.4,99,000/-, and the complainant paid Rs.39,400/- immediately, and the remaining was payable in some installments. The complainant made some further payments, and believing in the representation held out by Mr. Dilpreet Verma, he booked air tickets for some tours. The complainant claims that he received intimations from the OP No.1, and learnt that the commitments made to him before he made the payments were all false, and continuation of membership was possible only on the terms of the OP No.1. The complainant requested the OP on 21.01.2014 to cancel his
Contd......P/2
-:2:-
membership, and to refund the amount he had paid, but his prayer for refund was turned down. The complainant had to cancel the tours he had planned to undertake, and he incurred huge losses on that occasion. The complainant claims that the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice, and he filed this case praying for the refund of the amounts that he paid to them, and he prays for compensation and cost as well.
The OP has contested the case filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant. The OP admits the complainant as member as alleged. It is stated that there was a set of terms and conditions for the members, and according to that any request for cancellation of membership could be entertained only if the same was received within what the OPs have referred that as “recession period”, and as the complainant did not cancel his membership within the said “recession period”, it was refused. It is also stated by the OPs that the Honourable Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint and Civil Court is a proper Forum. It is also stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has approached before the Ld. Forum by suppressing material fact. So, the complaint should be rejected.
Complainant has filed the following documents:-
1. Xerox copy of Approval Form.
2. Xerox copy of Membership Card.
3. Xerox copy of Membership Letter.
4. Xerox copy of Payment Acknowledgement dated 04/01/2014.
5. Xerox copy of the e-mail dated 21/01/2014 sent by the complainant to the OP.
6. Xerox copy of the e-mail dated 14/02/2014 sent by the OP to the complainant.
7. Xerox copy of the ticket cancellation documents.
8. Xerox copy of the e-mail dated 19/02/2014 sent by the complainant to the OP.
Complainant has filed examination-in-chief and written notes of argument.
OPs have filed examination-in-chief and written notes of argument.
Points for decision
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
Contd......P/3
-:3:-
Decision with reason
It appears from the complaint that the case has been filed by the complainant against OP No.1 MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LIMITED, Mahindra Towers, 2nd Floor, 17/18, Patullos Road, CHENNAI – 600 002 & OP No.2 MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LIMITED, D-203, 2nd Floor, DC Block, Centre, Salt Lake City, KOLKATA – 700 064.
As per Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carried on business or] has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office,] or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office,] or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.
It appears that the OPs are not living within the jurisdiction of this Forum as laid down in Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the case is not maintainable.
So, after considering the submission of parties we are of opinion that the instant case is not maintainable in this Forum as per law laid down in Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e., this Forum is lacking of territorial jurisdiction.
As this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, accordingly, this Forum is not discussing other points.
Therefore, the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.73/S/2014 is dismissed on contest being not maintainable before this Forum due lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
-Member- -Member- -President-
