Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/354/2017

Ambrish Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Naik

06 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/354/2017
Date of Institution	:	26/04/2017
Date of Decision	:	06/12/2017

 

Ambrish Arora S/o Late Sh.Ram Saran Arora, R/o H.No.34, Sec.2, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited, through its Manager, (Club Mahindra), Registered Office at: Mahindra Towers, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor, 17/18 Patullos Road, Chennai (Tamil Nadu).

 

2.      Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited, through its Branch Manager, 504, Block-A, 5^th Floor, Elante Office Suits, Plot No.178-178A, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160001.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ashish Naik, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. J.S. Bhatia, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Ambrish Arora, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited and another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he subscribed White Season with Studio Apartment category membership of the Opposite Parties (3 Adults) for 25 years for a total consideration of Rs.4,40,308/- to be paid in 48 installments of Rs.8,596/- starting from 07.11.2015 to 07.10.2019. Apart from this, the Opposite Parties had taken Rs.33,700/- as down payment. The holidays were to start from 01.07.2016. With a view to celebrate his 25^th marriage anniversary falling on 16.02.2017, the Complainant booked holiday on 27.01.2017 for Srinagar (J&K) through Opposite Parties, for their stay from 15.02.2017 to 18.02.2017. However, on 03.02.2017, the said booking was cancelled by the Opposite Parties without giving any cogent reasons. Accordingly, the Complainant sought refund of his money already paid, with a request not to deduct any further EMI from his account. When the Opposite Parties did not give any heed to the aforesaid requests of the Complainant, he got served a legal notice dated 16.03.2017 upon them, but to no success.  Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainants have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         In their joint written reply, Opposite Parties have admitted that the complainant was provided all holidays as per his choice, except Srinagar which was cancelled due to the curfew imposed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir which was beyond their control. Furthermore, as per the policy of the Company if a particular resort is unavailable or cannot be booked due to the reasons beyond the control of the OP-Company, in that situation alternative accommodation is provided which in fact is clearly mentioned in the rules itself and the same was offered to the Complainant, but he never responded to the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         In their rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the Opposite Parties and reiterated his own. It has been contended that in the present case, the Opposite Parties are indulged in malpractices and are deficient in service, firstly, by not delivering what was assured to the Complainant and secondly, by illegally retaining the hard earned money of the Complainant.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the Parties. 
7.         The grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties have failed to provide the services of holidays he paid for and has charged/deducted further EMIs for the same without his authorization/instructions.
8.         On perusal of the documentary evidence produced before us, we find that since the year 2015 the Complainant had been availing uninterruptedly the holiday resorts of the Opposite Parties, but in the year 2017 the Opposite Parties could not provide the desired services at the opted place of the Complainant i.e. Srinagar (J & K) due to prevailing law & order situation at that point of time, which we feel is certainly being beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, as per the terms and conditions (Rule 5.7) of the Membership Contract, which is a binding contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties cannot be fastened with any liability in case of inability of fulfilling the obligation due to war, civil commotion and act of God etc. It has come on record that the Opposite Parties had offered alternative accommodation, as per the rules, and advised him Complainant to avail the holidays at some other station, but the Complainant never responded to the same. 
9.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/12/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”