STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T.,CHANDIGARH

1.    Dr. Shashanka Mohan Bose son of Late Sh. S.N.     

2.    Pratima Bose wife of Dr. Shashanka Mohan Bose,Chandigarh 

……Appellants/Complainants.

Versus

1.    Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd., through itsnd2.   Chandigarh             

....Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

“11.

[a]   To refund the entire amount received from the Complainants towards the Membership fee, without any deductions;

[b]   To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; 

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

12. 

2.          

3.           

4.              C-13.

5.          6.          

7.           

8.          

9.           

10.        

11.         

12.        

13.        

14.        

15.        Chandigarh   

16.        

17.         

18.        

19.        

i)      Direction No.11(a) of the impugned order is upheld. However, while complying the Direction No.11(a) of the impugned order, the respondents/Opposite Parties, are directed to refund the entire amount, received from the complainants, to the tune of Rs.3,75,055/- [Rs.1,94,413/- paid by complainant No.1 + Rs.1,80,642/- paid by complainant No.2), towards the Membership fee, without any deduction, alongwith interest @12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits;

ii)     The respondents/Opposite Parties, are directed to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment, instead of Rs.25,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.

iii)   Direction No.11(c) in the impugned order, awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs to the appellants/complainants, is upheld.

iv)    In the event of non-compliance of directions in    

20.        

21.        

Pronounced.

March .

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.41 of 2014)

Argued by:

Dated the 27^th

ORDER

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/ complainants has been partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been modified.

Ad