DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1346 of 2018
Date of institution: 19.12.2018 Date of decision : 15.09.2020
1. Mrs Anita W/o Mr. Raj Kumar , R/O B-15, C-DAC Housing Complex, Sector 70, Mohali-160071(Pb).
2. Raj Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ishwar Dass, R/O B-15 C-DAC Housing Complex, Sector 70, Mohali-160071(Pb).
…….Complainants
Versus
- M/s Club Resorto Hospitality Ltd, # 222, 2nd Floor, Global Business Park, Opp. Metro Mall, Zirakpur ( Mohali) Punjab.
2. M/s Club Resorto Hospitality Ltd, 425, 4th Floor, Qutub Plaza, DLF Phase-1, Gurgaon-122002.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member,
Present: None for the complainant.
OP No.1 given up
OP No.2 ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
Complainants (hereinafter referred as ‘CCs’ for short) have filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that CCs were approached by the OPs who invited them in VR Punjab Mall, Kharar ( Mohali) for some sort of seminar/presentation conducted by them. CCs visited the venue and held meeting with one Mr. Navneet and Mr. Achal Dubey allegedly Team Managers of the OPs. It is alleged that CCs were allured by the OPs to give Rs. 50,000/- including all charges for five years and in lieu of that they could purchase a holiday package. Accordingly, the CCs paid Rs. 50,000/- to the OPs on 19.07.2018. The specific allegation of the CCs is that the OPs concealed the true and actual facts and demanded Annual Maintenance Charges (AMC) for holiday package. Later on, it is also alleged that the OPs’ local representative did not provide them any copy of terms and conditions during and after the presentation where the seminar/meeting was done by the OPs. It was disclosed by the OPs that terms and conditions will be sent through email to the CCs. CCs were made to sign the agreement without disclosing the details of holiday package. It is alleged that CCs tried to click the photos of the documents but the OPs opposed this. It is averred that on 24.07.2018, CCs received an email from the OP’s Gurgaon office wherein a demand for Rs.8,000/- as AMC charges for holiday package was shown. CCs immediately contacted the Gurgaon office of the OPs but of no use and even the OPs stopped picking up their phones. Accordingly, CCs sought the refund of amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from the OPs and requested the OPs to cancel their membership. The OPs have not refunded the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the CCs till date.
Thus alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP, the CCs have sought the refund of Rs. 50,000/- paid to the OPs and also sought Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental torture and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Complaint of the CC is properly signed, verified and also supported by an affidavit.
3. The complainant No.2 on behalf of himself and complainant No.1 gave statement on 25.11.2019 regarding giving up their claim against OP No.1. OP No.2 chosen to remain ex-parte. OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.09.2019.
4. Since the entire evidence of the CCs is on the file, we feel that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also, the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act which is enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties.
5. Now the point in controversy before us is whether by not refunding the amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the CCs, the OPs have committed deficiency in service or not. The OPs had no right to retain the amount of the CCs, despite the fact that the complainants had refused to accept the holiday package of the OPs. Further we feel that by concealing the true and actual terms and conditions from the CCs, the OPs have adopted an unfair trade practice.
6. OP No.2 who was served upon , has chosen to remain ex-parte, and after perusal of file we feel the evidence of the CCs appears to be cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring, otherwise also it is uncontested. To our mind, there is sufficient evidence in support of allegations of the complainants. Complainants visited the seminar of the OPs, where they met one Mr. Navneet and Mr. Achal Dubey, Team Managers of the OPs and on their allurement paid Rs. 50,000/- to the OPs and accordingly purchased a holiday package. The transaction is proved by the document Ex-1.The allegation of the CCs is that at the time of payment of Rs. 50,000/- clear terms and conditions were not disclosed by the OPs to the CCs despite their several requests and after receiving the terms and conditions the CCs found that OPs were charging AMC of Rs. 8,000/- in addition to Rs.50,000/- for holiday package. This fact is disclosed in Ex-2. The non disclosure of the amount of Rs. 8,000/- as AMC charges by the OPs accordingly offended the CCs, who decided to cancel the holiday package and demanded the refund of their amount of Rs. 50,000/-. CCs in support of their respective allegations have submitted various emails on the file alongwith other documents.
7. Now the question before us is whether the OPs by not disclosing the terms and conditions and the extra demand of Rs.8,000/- to the CCs are deficient in rendering proper services to the CCs or not and also whether by not disclosing the terms and conditions to the CC, adopted a kind of malpractice.
8. By enacting the Consumer Protection Act, the intention of the Parliament is to provide a speedy justice to the consumers and for this purpose a quasi judicial machinery is set up in the shape of District Commissions. It is incumbent upon the District Commission to provide speedy and cost free justice to the consumers. To our mind, it is writ large on the file that the Ops had not disclosed the demand of Rs.8,000/- in the shape of AMC charges for the purchase of holiday package for which they had already received Rs.50,000/- Since OP No.2 has chosen to remain ex-parte, we can believe the contents of the complaint, from, where it is proved that no terms and conditions were provided to the CCs at the time of receiving the amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the OPs. We feel, that CCs are definitely entitled to the refund of Rs. 50,000/- from the OPs which they had received by not disclosing the true and actual terms and conditions of the package. Otherwise, also it is definitely a malpractice on the part of the OPs.
9. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and it is ordered:-
i) That the OPs will immediately refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) to the CCs alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
ii) The OPs are further directed to pay consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of 10,000/-(Rs.Ten thousand only) to the CCs.
Free certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.
Announced
September 15, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
