ORDER

12.05.2023

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEBER

1. A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protect Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.Act) filed by Sh. Ajay Sachdeva (hereinafter referred to as complainant). The complainant is seeking the refund of Rs.3,86,000/- alongwith interest 24% p.a  and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for pain, harassment, mental agony caused to complainant.
2. In brief facts of the present case are that the complainant being induced by the lucrative offer of the OP and purchase the membership of the OP. The complainant booked OP Kerala Resort in the month of April 2020 but had to cancel the same due to Covid pandemic. Again in the month of February and March 2021 the complainant planned his first trip to Udaipur, Rajasthan through OP1, where the complainant being induced by their words upgrade his membership to Season Red and signed some documents asked by the complainant however the same was never read by the complainant nor the copy was provided to him ever. The payment plan was also revised at this juncture.
3. In the month of October 2021 complainant made another trip with OP to Goa. On that trip very poor services were provided by the OP. There was illogical condition, unfriendly behaviour at the resort of OP. Despite repeated complaint to the manager of OP no satisfactory services was provided by the resort. Being aggrieved by the services of OP the complainant lodged the complaint with officials of OP then only for the first time he came to know that many terms and conditions were kept hidden from him at the time of selling of membership. It is further alleged that while going through the membership document received vide email dated 10.04.2022 complainant for the first time came to know that his signatures were forged on the document. It is alleged by the complainant that despite having charged huge money in the name of membership the services provided by the OPs are not only deficient but he was also kept in dark by concealing the various hidden terms and conditions for using the resorts of OP. The non-disclosure of the terms by OP amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP, hence this complaint.
4. The present complaint case is on admission stage. We have heard complainant and have perused the record.
5. The complainant has aggrieved and alleged that for the first time vide email dated 10.04.2022 the OPs shared the membership document and on perusal of the same it was found that on some documents the OP has forged his signature. The complainant’s allegation seems to be replica of criminal complaint and allegations of forgery concealment are dominant in the complaint. In these circumstances Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the law and in the latest judgment The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. VS R.Chandramohan, Civil Appeal No. 7289 of 2009 decided on 27.03.2023 held as under:

The counsel for theappellants has rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Ravneet Singh Bagga (supra) as under:

“5. Section 2(i)(o) defines “service” to mean service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board orlodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of newsor other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Section 2(i)(g) defines “deficiency” to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming orinadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.

“6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service isupon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established anywillful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortious acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bona fide disputes no willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed (sic). If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances during the transaction and that their actionor the final decision was in good faith,it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fides, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service”.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that now applying the principle of law discussed hereinabove the present case at the outset it is essential to reproduce para 11 of the present complaint.

11.That after many emails and calls respondent supplied few documents regarding membership of the complainant vide mail dt. 10.04.2022. While going through the said documents, complainant found that on some of the said documents, the respondent has “FORGED HIS SIGNATURES” at various documents. Due to this illegal act of the respondent, complainant felt utter shocked and deceived.

7. The present complaint involves the facts which requires adjudication of criminality like forgery which could not be decided by the Commission under the C.P Act 2019. The law is well settled that the proceeding before the commission being summary in nature cannot decide the criminal liabilities and offences such like fraud or cheating.
8. On the basis of above observation and discussion, the present complaint is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on  12.05.2023.

SANJAY KUMAR                             NIPUR CHANDNA                                RAJESH

PRESIDENT                                            MEMBER                                        MEMBER