Punjab

Sangrur

CC/320/2016

Amrit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Naresh Juneja

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR           

         

                                                                    Complaint no. 320

                                                                     Instituted on:  08.03.2016

                                                                     Decided on:    04.10.2016

 

 

1.     Amrit Kaur aged about 27 years wife of Amrinder Singh son of Jai Pal Singh.

2.     Amrinder Singh aged about 30 years son of Shri Jai Pal Singh, resident of Village Mandian, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainants.    

       

                                 Versus

 

1.     The Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited, 4^th and 5^th Floor, Country Pool, Country Club, Global Head Quarter, Begumpt, Hyderabad through its Manager.

2.     Gaurav Chaudhary, employee of the Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited, 4^th and 5^th Floor, Country Pool, Country Club, Global Head Quarter, Begumpt, Hyderabad.

3.     Karan Gupta employee of the Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited, 4^th and 5^th Floor, Country Pool, Country Club, Global Head Quarter, Begumpt, Hyderabad.

4.     Priyanka, employee of the Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited, 4^th and 5^th Floor, Country Pool, Country Club, Global Head Quarter, Begumpt, Hyderabad.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     A.S. Rajput, Advocate           

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member  

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Smt. Amrit Kaur and Shri Amrinder Singh, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 12.06.2015, Ops number 2 and 3 visited Maharaja Palace, Malerkotla for introducing the membership scheme of OP number 1, as such the complainants visited the OPs to get the membership of OP number 1, wherein the Ops also assured that they will give a free holidays package for seven days in any country of world and they also told that the company will give free accommodation in five star hotel along with food.  It is further averred that accordingly the complainant and his wife signed the application form number 127207 and also signed the approval form and paid an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as membership fee and it was settled between the complainants and OPs number 2 and 3 that the complainants will pay Rs.6500/- per year as annual charges to the OP number 1.  It is further averred that after receipt of the payment, the Ops number 2 and 3 told the complainants that now they can plan holidays in summer vacation in any country for seven days through OP number 1 and accordingly the complainants chose to visit Australia.  It is further averred that thereafter the complainant spent an amount of Rs.38,000/- as visa charges for going to Australia.  It has been further stated that after two and three months, the complainants confirmed the membership status from Ops number 2 to 4 through mobile,  but the Ops number 2 to 4 stated that the same will be received in few days.  Thereafter the complainants approached the Ops so many times, but all in vain, as such the complainants requested the Ops to cancel the membership and further requested for refund of the amount so deposited, but nothing was refunded to the complainant despite their best efforts.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainants have prayed that the Ops be directed to refund them an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.38,000/- along with interest and further clamed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainants have no cause of action, that the present complaint is on mere conjectures and surmises, oral and bald allegations without any evidence, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the services to the complainants are subject to the terms and conditions of the vacation agreement. It is stated that the vacation charges are non refundable under any circumstances.  On merits, it is admitted that on 12.6.2015, the Ops number 2 and 3 visited at Hotel Maharaja Palace, Malerkotla for promotion and sale of various membership plans.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased the membership and they were supplied list of properties where the OP number 1 is having owned and associated properties, which is also available online. It is denied that the free accommodation in five star hotel and food was offered.  It is further denied that the company ever offered the complainant one tour in Asia with one way tickets and hotel accommodation for three persons.  It is denied that the complainants ever told that they are planning to visit Australia.   It has been further averred that the membership card was sent to the complainants on 23.7.2015  and no intimation was made to the Ops by complainants before fore applying for visa of Australia and no holidays were booked for Australia through Ops.   The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto. 

 

3.             The complainants have tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of SMS, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10 copies of calls details, Ex.C-11 copy of receipt, Ex.C-12 copy of email, Ex.C-13 copy of membership form, Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-16 copies of emails, Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18 affidavits and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit along with exhibits Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the complainants, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant approached the Ops on 12.6.2015 and took the membership  by singing the application form number 127207  and it is further not in dispute that the complainants deposited an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- as membership fee.

 

 

6.             In the present case, the dispute raised by the complainants is that it was assured by the Ops at the time of getting the membership that the complainants can holiday plan in summer vacation in any country for seven days through the Ops and the Op number 2 and 3 promised to the complainants that their membership card will be received within two weeks at the postal address of the complainants, as such, the complainants applied for visa for Australia and paid Rs.38,000/- as Visa charges to the Embassy.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that they never assured the complainants for the same nor the complainants took prior approval for applying the visa for Australia nor the complainants ever apprised the Ops about the same.    The complainants have produced on record copies of SMS as Ex.C-1 to 7, but it is not proved from these documents that the Ops ever assured the complainants to visit Australia or to get the visa for the same.  It is further case of the Ops that the complainants before filing the complaint never apprised the Ops about their visit to Australia. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the vacation charges are not refundable under any circumstances and the vacation fee is not a refundable deposit.   We have also perused the copy of vacations agreement Ex.R-2 which is duly signed by the complainant Amrit Kaur and as such, we feel that the complainant is also bound by the same. Since the complainants have miserably failed to produce on record any cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the Ops ever assured them to arrange visa for Australia or the Ops will provide a holiday plan in Australia, we feel that we are unable to pass any such order against the Ops. However, we feel that the Ops shall be bound to provide the facilities to the complainants as per the vacations agreement.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.     

Pronounced.

 

                October 4, 2016.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member