STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

1. Country Club Corporate office: Country Club Kool, #6-3-1219, 4th floor, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016 through its Managing Director.
2. Country Club Regd. Office: Amrutha Castle, 5-9-16, Saifabad Secretariat, Hyderabad 500063-through its Regional Manager.
3. Country Club, Branch Office: SCO 44& 45, 2nd floor above PNB, Sector 9D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160019-through its Branch Manager                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .  Appellants.

                                               Versus

Meenakshi Sharma aged 55 yrs wife of Sh. Girish Sharma R/o 55, HIG, Sector-4, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan (Himachal Pradesh).

                                                                           ..... Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 15.12.2022 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.1068/2019.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Pardeep Sharma,Advocate for the appellants.

                         Sh.Chetan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent

 PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.12.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/1068/2019 and directed the Opposite Parties in the following terms;-

1. to refund the deposited amount of ₹71,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date(s) of deposit till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3.  to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

     This order has been directed to be complied with by the Opposite Parties within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

2.          Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant that,  allured by Opposite Party No.3, she took five years vacation (blue) membership of the Opposite Parties and paid Rs.71000/- to Opposite Party No.3.  It was assured to the complainant that she will get 71 nights for lifetime in the 4 star and 5 star hotels and also that no AMC will be charged from him. However, thereafter vide Annexure C-1 the Opposite Party No.3 demanded Rs.10,500/- towards Annual Administrative Charges (AMC) apart from the amount of Rs.71,000/- already paid by the complainant. It is alleged that as the demand of separate AMC charges was contrary to the terms and conditions explained to the complainant,  and as such, the complainant did not  pay the AMC charges and requested   to Opposite Party No.3 for refund of Rs.71,000/- but in vain. Ultimately the complainant sent legal Notice Annexure C-2 to the opposite Parties but there was no response. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

3.                The Opposite Parties in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant opted for blue season membership and she alongwith her spouse and children below 12 years age are entitled to vacation for 6 nights and 7 days each year for a period of 5 years at the affiliated properties of Opposite Parties,   totalling of 30 nights and 35 days. Thus, it is wrong that the complainant was given assurance of 71 nights for life time in four star and five star hotels and she herself also admitted that she was inducted as a member for 5 years vacation (blue) membership.   Further Clause 6 of the Agreement  as well as Welcome Letter clearly talks about annual maintenance charges to be payable by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant cannot claim that she was assured that no AMC charges will be levied. It  is further averred that Annexure C-1 is not an email instead it is Welcome Letter sent to the complainant alongwith membership card and agreement on 8.2.2019 and on receipt of the same the complainant did not raise any concern at that time. The complainant sent email Annexure R-7 in the month of May 2019 only. The Opposite Parties vide email dated 22.7.2019  again clarified to the complainant that she was  liable to pay AMC charges as per policy of the company irrespective of the usage of the membership as this fact has been incorporated in the Agreement duly signed by her. The complainant did not clear the annual administrative charges and thus violated the conditions of the agreement.  It was pleaded that there was  no deficiency  in service on the part of the respondents. By denying  other allegations made in the complaint, a prayer was  made for dismissal of the complaint. 

 4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the complaint of the appellant/ Complainant, as noted in the opening para of this order.    

5.                 Aggrieved against the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellants /Opposite Parties   

6.                     We have heard Counsel for parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.                     The core question that falls for consideration before us, is as to whether, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. The answer to this question is in affirmative. It is admitted that the respondent/complainant paid Rs.71,000/ towards membership of the appellants as a five years vacation(Blue) membership. However, no service was availed by the respondent.  It is contended on behalf of the  appellants  that the complainant herself signed the Agreement(Annexure R-2) and she never alleged that the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement were very fine and small print ; the appellants never forfeited the entire amount paid by the respondent and the membership of the respondent is intact. It was only that annual maintenance charges were claimed from the respondent as per terms and conditions of the agreement.  It is further contended that the complainant herself nowhere claimed that the agreement was unreasonable  and she never exercised Clause No.26 of cool off period, if there was any  mis-sale of the membership. It is further contended that in  the  Welcome Letter dated 8.2.2019(C-1/R-6) it was clearly mentioned that as a five years vacations (Blue) member, respondent was required to pay Rs.10500/- as mandatory annual administrative charges irrespective of usage of facility. 

8.                It is contended by the Counsel for the respondent that the respondent was made to sign the agreement without allowing her to go through the same and without being read over. However, few particulars of only one plan vis-à-vis its price and duration were explained without explaining its details, terms and conditions and particularly the respondent was told that she had not to pay anything over and above the payment of Rs.71,000/- which was the membership fee.  It is further contended that the clauses contained in the agreement were so minute which were not legible and as such the Ld. Lower Commission rightly observed that the membership agreements were only a standard format of contract where the weaker party remains on the receiving end. 

9                 The Ld. Lower Commission while allowing the complaint rightly observed as under ;

“Careful perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact that complainant paid an amount of Rs.71000/- but it is also a matter of fact that no service was availed by the complainant till date.   A thorough examination of Agreement Annexure R-2(colly) reveals that the  terms and conditions mentioned therein are in a very fine and small print which are even difficult to read, which amounts to adopting of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. It has been so held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd. II(2002) CPJ 24 (NC) and then in Blaze Flash Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rohit J. Poladiya & anr. 1 (2008)CPJ 452 (NC)

                In the instant complaint the complainant expressed her intention not to continue with the membership of OPs due to additional charges, which were not explained to her earlier and as such requested for refund.  Hence, in our considered opinion  it is too harsh and unreasonable on the part of the OPs to forfeit the entire amount  of the complainant paid for the holiday package particularly when the complainant has not availed any single service from the OPs  under the garb of unreasonable agreement wherein the term and conditions are even not readable as discussed above. In our opinion these membership agreements are only a standard format of contract where the weaker party remain on the receiving end and therefore, it is our duty to protect the gullible consumers from the hands of unscrupulous traders, which also is the prime aim and object of the Consumer Protection Act, it being a benevolent piece of legislation.  Hence, the OPs are indulged in unfair trade practice by adopting deceptive method to allure the consumers through the unreasonable agreements and as such they are on wrong footing by rejecting the request of the complaint for refund particularly when no service was availed by her.  Hence, the complaint deserves to be allowed.”

.                We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite justified. It was rightly held that the terms and conditions of the agreement Annexure R-2 are in a very fine and small print which are even difficult to read and it amounts to  adopting of unfair trade practice. It was also rightly held that  membership agreements are only a standard format of contract where the weaker party remains on the receiving end and under the Consumer Protection Act, which is a benevolent piece of legislation, consumers are protected from such unscrupulous traders. We find that  no is case made to interfere in the order, under challenge.

10.                   For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 11.                 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Js